Quantifying “deep learning” in geomatics engineering by means of classroom observations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
On the spectra of soft-hard and pure-applied disciplines, geomatics engineering can be categorized as hard and applied, similarly to other engineering disciplines. One can expect that geomatics engineering would score lower in deep learning as such patterns have been observed for other engineering disciplines compared to soft and pure ones. Some students in upper level courses in geomatics engineering may still struggle with fundamental knowledge from lower level courses. This makes it hard for instructors to create an environment for deep learning. They may have to spend a significant amount of class time reviewing basic concepts, and not as much time is left for building up more complex concepts and problem solving. In order to be more successful in tackling higher level learning outcomes, it would be useful to identify areas of troublesome knowledge and specific threshold concepts in key geomatics engineering courses. By addressing these concepts, instructors can eliminate, or at least minimize, the bottlenecks in the learning process. This is the aim of the teaching and learning research study presented in this paper.The main method for collecting data for this study is classroom observations complemented by minute papers at the end of each course unit. Even though the study is in its early stage, some correlations between the type of lessons delivered and the student cognitive and behavioural engagement can be seen, and some concepts can already be identified as probable threshold concepts. As far as the authors are aware, this is the first study on threshold concepts in geomatics engineering
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".