An evaluation of 18 years of use of a progress exam at the Dalhousie College of Pharmacy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: The purpose of this evaluation was to determine if the seven original objectives of the Progress Exam had been achieved, and to provide recommendations for improvements. Description of Progress Exam: The Progress Exam was comprised of 100 multiple choice questions based on a blueprint. All students wrote the same exam once yearly at the same time. Methods: A theory-of-change approach to evaluation was used. Data from 1) a document review; 2) an interview; 3) a survey ; and 4) an eleven year evaluation of Progress Exam results, were collated and analysed. Evaluation: This evaluation indicated that four of the original seven objectives were achieved (knowledge learned was similar in two different curricula; students’ knowledge improved over the duration of the programme; student’s knowledge was retained throughout the programme; and, the Progress Exam provided an opportunity to write a comprehensive exam). Future Work: Review of the results of this evaluation led to recommendations for improvements that are under consideration by the Curriculum Committee.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".