THREE QUARTERS OF A LOOP: CO-OP WORK TERM EVALUATIONS AND WORK REPORTS TO MEASURE THE COMMUNICATION ATTRIBUTE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract –This research analyzes the available data (student work term evaluations performed by employers, and work reports evaluated by the program) to triangulate and understand student performance on the CEAB Communication attribute. In this way we aim to innovate in the field of co-operative education to leverage the diverse work experiences of our students and understand their diverse backgrounds to suggest means of improving their communication skills. In this paper, we analyze employer feedback by grouping responses in several ways (binning by engineering program, term of study, level of performance, and criteria) to assess student performances at the faculty and program levels. We also assess student work reports for communication and analytical skills. We find a notable contrast between the evaluations given for the performance criteria. Students appear to perform at a higher level in areas such as Interpersonal Communication, Teamwork, and Appreciation of Diversity, while evaluations for criteria such as Problem Solving and Oral and Written Communication are relatively lower. This is supported by work report assessments showing that some students continue to struggle with written communication and analysis. Future work will include focus groups with employers and students to add meaning to the data. Throughout the process, writing and communication experts are involved to help interpret data and recommend solutions.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".