MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Redesigning the Information Systems Analysis and Design Course: Curriculum Renewal

2014· article· en· W2186554372 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Computer Information Systems · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicInformation Systems Education and Curriculum Development
Canadian institutionsSaint Mary's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCourse (navigation)CurriculumInformation systemManagement information systemsEngineering managementInformation technologyComputer scienceStructured systems analysis and design methodKnowledge managementSystems designProcess managementEngineeringSoftware engineeringPsychologyPedagogy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To meet the challenge of stable low enrollments in the Management Information System (MIS) programs, the renewal of the MIS curriculum and the pedagogies is imperative. While he MIS renewal strategies vary depending upon the university programs, the redesign MIS major courses for all business majors can be a feasible approach to increasing the enrollment of MIS courses in the business programs where many business majors demand advanced information technology courses. This paper presents a case of redesign of the information systems analysis and design course for all business majors. It explains the motivation of redesign, the major consideration of redesign, and the implementation of redesign of this course. Our preliminary study for the assessment of the redesigned course has indicated that the information systems analysis and design course can be a valuable MIS elective course for all non-MIS majors.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.975
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0030.009
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.220 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it