Survey of Biology Capstone Courses in American and Canadian Higher Education: Requirement, Content, and Skills.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Capstone experiences have high educational impact with various approaches available for biology. However, no information exists regarding the pervasiveness of capstone courses in Canadian and American biology programs. This study surveyed the prevalence and character of biology capstone courses in the USA and Canada. The survey included a majority of public institutions offering primarily undergraduate programs. Seventy percent of American biology degree programs required a capstone course vs 27% of Canadian schools. Large and graduate institutions were less likely to require a capstone course. Medium-sized institutions were more likely to deliver their biology capstone course as a seminar, whereas small institutions were more likely to include an undergraduate research experience. Sixty percent provided some review of biology’s conceptual foundations, but most capstone courses devote little time considering the history or philosophy of biology. Most schools included the development of students’ writing, speaking, and thinking as learning objectives. Research skills were significantly less likely to be a learning objective. Although biological capstone courses may intend to integrate students’ biological knowledge, educators also need to consider how that knowledge could be synthesized into students’ entire education.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
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".