MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2909548101 · doi:10.24908/pceea.v0i0.13032

Use of a roleplaying exercise to illustrate design stakeholder roles in a first-year design course

2018· article· en· W2909548101 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA) · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicProblem and Project Based Learning
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStakeholderSustainabilityMedical educationProcess (computing)Course (navigation)Mathematics educationPsychologyEngineeringManagementSociologyPedagogyPolitical sciencePublic relationsComputer scienceMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

VANT 150 is a first-year course in designand sustainability for international students enrolled inthe Vantage One program at UBC. One of its learningoutcomes is to understand the importance ofcommunication between different stakeholders in thedesign process.The 2016 final exam revealed that students haddifficulties understanding the positions of the designer,client and user as stakeholders. A simulation(roleplaying) exercise was implemented in 2017 in orderto help students better understand these roles and raiseawareness about the importance of communicationbetween them.The 2016 and 2017 final exams included a question todifferentiate stakeholder roles. We found that the averagescore in this question was 8% higher in 2017 than in2016. This difference is statistically significant withp < 0.005. This suggests the stakeholder simulationactivity helped our students better understand theseconcepts.

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.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.158
Threshold uncertainty score0.961

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.209 · 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