MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2320812668 · doi:10.4307/jsee.62.3_9

Implementation and Evaluation of a Logical Thinking Education for Undergraduate Students through Industry-Academia Collaboration

2014· article· en· W2320812668 on OpenAlexaff
Kei Kawamura, Tetsuya IMAMURA, Nobuyuki OHSHIMA, Yoshihiko Hamamoto

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of JSEE · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicOpen Education and E-Learning
Canadian institutionsImmunoPrecise (Canada)
FundersYamaguchi University
KeywordsCompetence (human resources)Promotion (chess)Logical reasoningAgency (philosophy)EngineeringLogical analysisEngineering managementMedical educationMathematics educationEngineering ethicsPsychologyKnowledge managementComputer scienceMedicinePolitical scienceSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 2010, Department of Information Science and Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Yamaguchi University started a logical thinking education for undergraduate students. In the subjects related to the education, students learn knowledge, skills and attitudes to foster their coherent and logical thinking abilities. These subjects were developed under the industry-academia collaboration promoted by Information-technology Promotion Agency (IPA) . This paper describes the implementation of the education and the evaluation of the educational efficiency. It contains designing educational contents and materials that reflect company needs. Emphasizing the educational effectiveness, the questionnaire results of the subject evaluation and the competence self-evaluation are included in this paper. The competence is a set of the defined behaviors that show the ability of an individual to do a job properly.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.060

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.059
GPT teacher head0.444
Teacher spread0.384 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of JSEESame topicOpen Education and E-LearningFrench-language works237,207