Reflections on the International Baccalaureate Program: Graduates’ Perspectives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents the results of a survey administered during the spring of 2005. At this time, graduates of the International Baccalaureate (IB) Program from two public schools in a large city in British Columbia, Canada, were asked to respond to 20 statements on a 4-point Likert-type scale, and to 7 open-ended questions. Graduates from the years 1996 and 2000 were selected. At the time of this survey, many of the graduates of 2000 were just finishing their undergraduate postsecondary programs, and the graduates of 1996 were settling into their chosen careers. Both groups were in a position to reflect on their experiences while they were in the program, and also to analyze the benefits of IB, if any, that they experienced during their postsecondary studies. Overall, graduates reported positive experiences in the program. They felt that the rich curriculum to which they were exposed, and the critical thinking and time management skills that they developed, were well worth the extra effort required to earn an IB diploma. Furthermore, they felt that the IB experience prepared them well for postsecondary studies.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".