Bibliographic record
Abstract
Preliminary findings obtained from a three-year study are presented where different cohorts of undergraduate civil engineering students are followed for three consecutive years while completing the Civil Engineering program at the Université de Moncton. This study outlines how a set of problem instances were developed, wherein a student performs a series of steps to formulate a solution. These steps are mapped to one or more skills, also known as procedural knowledge components, which are essential for students to have mastered from one or more previous courses in order to successfully complete the course in question. Over a hundred students from the second, third, or fourth year performed a series of problem-solving tasks that assess a common set of skills at the beginning of their respected courses. The findings obtained from the first year of this study show that students vary in their abilities to correctly solve instances of a problem on their first attempt. This suggests that there is a pressing need for assessment tools that target progressions for specific courses using the range of standards outlined by the Canadian Engineering Accreditation Board as progress indicators while providing individualized instructional modules developed on the basis of research-based understanding of how these skills develop over time for all students.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".