Determining the Content Validity of a Biosystems Engineering Program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study was designed as an exploratorycase study to determine the relative importance anddependencies of the CEAB graduate attributes asperceived by engineering stakeholders of the University ofManitoba. The findings were used to examine the contentvalidity of the Biosystems Engineering program. Theoverarching objective was to explore how well theemphasis on graduate attributes development in theFaculty of Engineering at the University of Manitobareflect the graduate attribute importance reported by keystakeholders. Findings showed that all stakeholdersranked Individual and Teamwork and CommunicationsSkills as the top engineering competencies, and all CEABgraduate attributes were perceived to between 6.1% and10.9% relatively important. This was in sharp contrast tothe Biosystems Engineering program, which is comprisedof approximately 50% of the graduate attribute, AKnowledge Base for Engineering. In this paper, themethods and findings in the determination of the contentvalidity of an engineering program are presented anddiscussed.
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 | 0.036 | 0.150 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".