Students’ Perspective of the CES Case Competition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Case Competition is open to university students (undergraduate and graduate) across Canada. Teams of three to five students, from any discipline, analyze an evaluation case and present their findings to a panel of judges. The competition consists of two rounds — the preliminary and the final. The preliminary round takes place at each team’s home university. The teams are presented with an evaluation case and asked to address specific issues. The team may be asked to comment on a completed evaluation, make recommendations for partially completed work, or design a full evaluation. The time limit is very strict, and the teams have no idea ahead of time what the content or nature of their task will be. During the preliminary round, the report is e-mailed or faxed to the case organizers within five hours of receiving the case material. Volunteer judges affiliated with the CES read the submissions and invite three teams to participate in the final round. Their decision is based on specific criteria: content (relevance of material), accessibility (ease of absorption of information), impact (strength of argument), and overall impression of the presentation.
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 | 0.013 | 0.004 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".