OBACIS Phase II: Catalogs and Auto-Generated Course Information Sheets
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract—OBACIS is an integrated framework being developed to accelerate the accreditation reporting workflow, cut down the reporting cost by an order of magnitude, and close the data-driven continuous improvement loop. The framework integrates three different pieces of software: 1) an Excel Add-in, or the "Xl-App", for simultaneous grade and OBA reporting; 2) A Windows Application, or the "Win-App" for program and faculty-level template creation, document compilation, and program assessment; and, 3) a web-tool, or the "Web-App", for document compilation and reporting. This paper focuses on creating a centralized database for compiling raw data related to accreditation reporting from various resources such as previous visit accreditation reports, academic calendars, course schedules, and a handful of other resources are used to create what we call OBACIS Catalogs. The Catalogs framework is a part of the bigger OBACIS framework proposed in CEEA 2016 [1]. The framework has been implemented as a module of the Win-App. Automating the creation process of Course Information Sheets (CIS) was the original goal and is still one of the main outputs of the proposed framework. The OBACIS Catalogs are supposed to save a sheer amount of time needed for accreditation reporting and should act as an instrumental tool for accelerating accreditation data collection, creating insightful analyses, and identifying gaps for continuous improvement initiatives at both program and faculty levels.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".