MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2598662312 · doi:10.24908/pceea.v0i0.6485

Work-term Experience and Graduate Attribute Assessment in Software Engineering Co-op Program at University of Ottawa

2017· article· en· W2598662312 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Aneta George, 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
KeywordsGeneral partnershipWork (physics)Term (time)Engineering managementMedical educationGraduate studentsSample (material)Computer scienceOrder (exchange)Course (navigation)Component (thermodynamics)EngineeringPolitical scienceBusinessMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A successful co-op program is a partnership between university, student and employer. At the University of Ottawa, we have chosen to use an Employer Evaluation form as a critical component of graduate attribute assessment. We also created a new first year course that introduced students to professional communication and responsibility in order to adequately prepare them for their first work term. The graduate attributes from both the coop work experience and the new course are imported into the Graduate Attributes Information Analysis system (GAIA) we have developed. We show the historical trend analysis at both the course level and the program level generated and provide a sample of how we are using these results to guide improvement of our overall program, as well as the co-op experience of students and employers.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Evaluation · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.997
Threshold uncertainty score0.847

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.245 · 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.

Study designObservational
DomainEvaluation
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

Citations2
Published2017
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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