MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2416206676 · doi:10.1002/tl.20184

The Intentional Design of a SoTL Initiative

2016· article· en· W2416206676 on OpenAlexaff
Cheryl Amundsen, Esma Emmioğlu Sarıkaya, Veronica Hotton, Gregory Hum, Cindy Xin

Bibliographic record

VenueNew Directions for Teaching and Learning · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInnovations in Medical Education
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUnderpinningCoherence (philosophical gambling strategy)Scholarship of Teaching and LearningMathematics educationPedagogySociologyPsychologyEngineering ethicsComputer scienceTeaching methodEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This chapter describes a SoTL program at Simon Fraser University that focuses on the importance of analyzing the internal coherence and alignment of the program design and the thinking underpinning the design as the first steps in evaluating effectiveness or impact.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.979
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.307 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designOther design
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

Citations4
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNew Directions for Teaching and LearningSame topicInnovations in Medical EducationFrench-language works237,207