MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2749119382 · doi:10.1080/87567555.2017.1349075

Improving the Quality of Constructive Peer Feedback

2017· article· en· W2749119382 on OpenAlexaff
Ashley Waggoner Denton

Bibliographic record

VenueCollege Teaching · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicStudent Assessment and Feedback
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConstructiveQuality (philosophy)Computer sciencePeer feedbackSimple (philosophy)Order (exchange)Mathematics educationManagement scienceEngineering ethicsPsychologyEpistemologyEngineeringProcess (computing)Business

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article presents some simple strategies that instructors can use to improve the quality of the feedback students provide each other during a peer review activity. Briefly, I recommend that emphasis be placed solely on the provision of constructive comments, and that in order to qualify as constructive, a comment must: (1) identify a specific problem, (2) explain why it is a problem, and (3) provide a concrete solution for the problem.

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)0.157
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.555
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Evaluation · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.843
Threshold uncertainty score0.830

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1570.555
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0070.007
Open science0.0040.005
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.003

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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.403
Teacher spread0.343 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations16
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCollege TeachingSame topicStudent Assessment and FeedbackFrench-language works237,207