Use of Extra-Credit Questions in a Comparative Theriogenology Course
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is little information in the literature about extra credit in undergraduate coursework and even less about professional schools, including colleges of veterinary medicine. For the present study, syllabi at one veterinary school were reviewed to determine availability of extra credit. Extra credit was offered in 13.0% of courses in the core curriculum (first five semesters), with number of points ranging from 1% to 4% of total course points. Students in a comparative theriogenology course in 1 year of the curriculum (year 1) were offered 12 extra-credit questions over the semester. There was no correlation between number of questions completed and examination scores or final grade for the course. Sixty students (85.7%) agreed or strongly agreed that the extra-credit questions helped them review material from this course and other courses, and 80.0% agreed or strongly agreed that the questions helped them integrate material. The next cohort of students taking the course (year 2) were required to answer one of the questions as an assignment, and were given the option of choosing the question answered. Sixty-six students (79.5%) agreed or strongly agreed that the assignment questions helped them review material from this course and other courses, and 69.9% agreed or strongly agreed that the questions helped them integrate material. Students generally had a better feeling about completing extra-credit questions than they did about completing a required assignment, and this feeling was not due to points received relative to their perceived effort.
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 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".