MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2909254633 · doi:10.1115/imece2018-88096

An Excel Add-in for Accreditation Data Collection and Auto Grading Sheets (AGS): A Canadian Experience

2018· article· en· W2909254633 on OpenAlexaffabout
Mohamed A. Ismail

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicExperimental Learning in Engineering
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Regina
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAccreditationComputer scienceGrading (engineering)Data collectionParsingWorld Wide WebAutomationXMLMicrosoft excelSoftware engineeringArtificial intelligenceMedical educationEngineeringOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, an Excel Add-in or Xl-App for automating grade recording and graduate attributes assessment at the course level is presented. The Xl-App is one of the three major constituents of the OBACIS System. At the course level, the purpose of the Xl-App is twofold: 1) cutting down the grade compilation and accreditation reporting time and effort by an order of magnitude using the built-in OBACIS accreditation and grading sheets (AGS) module 2) introducing an advanced tool for data-driven continuous improvement (DCI) for enhancing the teaching and learning experience at both course and program levels. The app has a third module used to collect additional information related to accreditation reporting. This information is required by the course information sheets (CIS) mandated by CEAB accreditation questionnaire. The Win-app has a dedicated module that serves that purpose called OBACIS Catalogs. The Xl-App is capable of emitting the data collected in both XLSX and XML formats. The data collected can be easily exported to learning management systems (LMS), grade books, and web marking systems. The OBACIS Win-App can easily parse the data collected from different faculty members using the Xl-App in their raw excel format and integrate them together to generate unified program and faculty-level assessment reports that can be utilized in generating top-down continuous improvement action plans. The Xl-App has been in implementation since early 2015. It had remarkable impact on enhancing the teaching and learning experience of a handful of courses taught by the author. The App improved the robustness of course grading and saved a tremendous amount of time needed for grade and accreditation reporting.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.906
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.027
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.267 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicExperimental Learning in EngineeringFrench-language works237,207