The Process of Continual Improvement of Engineering Programs at the University of Manitoba: Now and Next
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper describes the process that has been implemented for continual improvement of the Engineering programs at the University of Manitoba. The continuous improvement process developed is founded on: (i) assessment of graduate attributes, (ii) evaluation of student success, and (iii) further improvement of the programs. Graduate attributes are assessed both directly and indirectly. The direct assessment of attributes is through course-embedded procedures, while the indirect assessment is through compilation of many activities at both the Program, Department and Faculty levels, as well as via effective feedback from the students and the external engineering community. Together these assessments provide important information for the newly- established Curriculum Management Committee (CMC) to identify/prioritize needs, make recommendations and oversee the implementation of improvements. We describe steps taken to ensure a sustainable continuous program improvement process.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it