MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2438251345 · doi:10.2166/wst.2001.0318

Teaching future professors how to teach

2001· article· en· W2438251345 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

VenueWater Science & Technology · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicExperimental Learning in Engineering
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClass (philosophy)Course (navigation)Graduate studentsMedical educationUnit (ring theory)Mathematics educationTeaching methodStudent teachingTeam teachingPsychologyEngineeringComputer scienceStudent teacherMedicineTeacher education

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper describes a course designed to provide hands-on teaching experience to future professors and to incorporate techniques for more effective teaching. A team of Ph.D. candidates, under the direction of a senior faculty member, prepared a new course from beginning to end and then offered it to a class of graduate students. The course was developed using the unit map concept so that the presentations by the five student-instructors complemented and built upon one another. Immediately after each class, feedback was given to the student-instructors by the faculty advisor and the other student-instructors. Review of video tapes of the lecture reinforced this feedback. At the completion of the course, both students and student-instructors were surveyed as to the effectiveness of the course and the student-instructors. This teaching experience and the feedback obtained from the surveys will be invaluable to the student-instructors in their future development.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.292
Threshold uncertainty score0.555

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.228 · 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