Engineering Graduate Attributes - Investigation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Canadian Engineering Accreditation Board (CEAB) has added a graduate attributes component to the overall accreditation process.This addition is in part driven by Canada's participation in the Washington Accord.CEAB recognizes that it will take some time for CEAB and Canadian schools to gain comfort and skills with this new element of the review process.In that context, it is not until reviews beginning in 2014 that schools could be considered deficient as a result of the graduate attribute system.The Environmental Engineering group at the University of Guelph has embarked on exploring the Investigation attribute.The Environmental Engineering group's exploration is a work in progress that we are certain will be and should be highly iterative.The group started with defining what the Investigation attribute means in the context of the Environmental Engineering.This was followed by an exercise to create a functional framework that would effectively capture this investigation meaning.The framework chosen is an Investigation Process that has similarities to the Design Process.The Investigation Process obviously differs in being driven by advancing knowledge and understanding.The group is currently surveying current curriculum against this framework.Each Investigation Process element within each course will be judged in terms of reaching the Idea, Connection or Extension level.It is expected that our exploration will lead to a current curriculum map and the development of initial recommendations for the advancement of our students Investigation skill sets.
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 | 0.026 | 0.071 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.005 |
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".