MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2886601050 · doi:10.24908/pceea.v0i0.9636

LEARNING THE LIFE SKILL: CEAB LIFELONG LEARNING GRADUATE ATTRIBUTE

2018· article· en· W2886601050 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Sadegh Babaii Kochekseraii, Libby Osgood

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA) · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEngineering Education and Curriculum Development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Prince Edward Island
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLifelong learningScope (computer science)SyllabusSet (abstract data type)AccreditationIntervention (counseling)Process (computing)PsychologyMathematics educationComputer sciencePedagogyMedical educationMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract –The focus of this paper is to present a baseline to a proposed longevity project for enhanced introduction of lifelong learning skill to engineering students. Lifelong learning is one of the twelve graduate attributes identified and evaluated by CEAB in the accreditation process of Canadian engineering programs. ENGN 326: Materials, Mechanics and Manufacturing is a third year core course with a broad scope of topics Students’ learning experience could be enriched if they adopt a proactive learning effort of setting weekly learning goals that could go beyond the set of topics given in the course syllabus. From their weekly submissions and their subsequent reflections, we tried to answer how realistic goals were set by the students and how much they were related to course materials. Comparisons to a similar study [1], presented in CEEA16 by the authors, have been made to show the effectiveness of SMART goal setting intervention to be given in an appropriate time before the first mid-term.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.038

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.002

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.194
Teacher spread0.187 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations2
Published2018
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA)Same topicEngineering Education and Curriculum DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207