MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2594276145 · doi:10.24908/pceea.v0i0.6484

GRADUATE ATTRIBUTE ASSESSMENT IN SOFTWARE ENGINEERING PROGRAM AT UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA – CONTINUAL IMPROVEMENT PROCESS

2017· article· en· W2594276145 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Aneta George, Timothy C. Lethbridge, Liam Peyton

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA) · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicOnline Learning and Analytics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of Ottawa
KeywordsRubricGrading (engineering)VisualizationComputer scienceProcess (computing)Software engineeringScale (ratio)Graduate studentsSoftwareData scienceEngineering managementData miningEngineeringMathematics educationCivil engineeringCartographyProgramming languageMedical educationPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Management, measurement, and visualization of graduate attributes in a program can be complex and challenging. At the University of Ottawa, we have developed a Graduate Attribute Information Analysis system (GAIA) to support performance management of graduate attributes. It simplifies data collection and improves visualization of results with historical trend analysis at both the course level and the program level. Graduate attribute measurements are defined in a tool that can flexibly integrate internal indicators (such as tests, assignments, exam questions) or external indicators (such as surveys or feedback forms). We have mapped the assessment results with a four-scale rubric that allows the use of weighted grading when dominant and secondary components apply. And we support measurement-specific range boundaries to better match the expected level of knowledge students must achieve.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.066
Threshold uncertainty score0.723

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.238 · 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.

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

Citations9
Published2017
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA)Same topicOnline Learning and AnalyticsFrench-language works237,207