MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2612883218 · doi:10.15173/ijsap.v1i1.3094

Reflections on Developing the Student Consultants for Teaching and Learning Program at Reed College, USA

2017· article· en· W2612883218 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Kathryn C. Oleson, Knar Hovakimyan

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal for Students as Partners · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHigher Education Practises and Engagement
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersReed CollegeHaverford CollegeAndrew W. Mellon Foundation
KeywordsMedical educationMathematics educationPsychologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

At Reed College, many classes are taught as discussion-based conferences in which students and faculty must come prepared to engage in dialogue about the day's material, take risks and feel discomfort as they challenge themselves, and create shared ownership in their own active learning Collaboration is fundamental. The Center for Teaching and Learning (CTL) opened in Fall 2014 to help faculty develop and improve their methods of instruction and to promote productive pedagogical feedback to professors (Oleson, 2016). In 2014, we started a student-consultant program at Reed since faculty-student partnerships seemed a promising approach for faculty to receive feedback essential for improvement This essay, reflecting on the development of the program, was co

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.869
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0110.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.196
GPT teacher head0.653
Teacher spread0.457 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations7
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal for Students as PartnersSame topicHigher Education Practises and EngagementFrench-language works237,207