A Practicum of Fairness: Smart Practices for Undergraduate Professional Program Practicum Assessment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ombudsperson offices have identified the practicum process as a source of misunderstanding and grievance among professional programs in higher education. This project takes a participatory needs assessment and smart practices approach to gain a better understanding of what administrative practicum coordinators in the schools of Social Work, Nursing, Education and Child and Youth Care perceive to be factors that inhibit or enhance a practicum student’s expectation of the practicum experience and what effective practices and processes they have implemented. This research was framed through the ombudsperson fairness triangle – substantive, procedural, and reflective fairness. The purpose of this project was to analyze and recommend options to assist undergraduate professional programs. The recommendations hope to act as a guide for practicum program coordinators, smart practice considerations for post-secondary ombuds offices, and reflection for senior administration when reviewing or designing programs with experiential learning components.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.145 | 0.157 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.017 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".