Bibliographic record
Abstract
practice can help with developing professional skills. To encourage the development of self reflection and ultimately meta-cognition related to project and design work, undergraduate electrical engineering students in anon-capstone project course undertook reflection exercises on their group project. The instructor observed a range of abilities to undertake the reflections, with some not going beyond describing the work that they had done, whereas others started to show a deeper consideration and thinking about their project work. The main route for reflection was a reflection journal, where five entries were required over the period of the project. The choice of reflection topic was up to the student except in one entry case when a mandatory question on life long learning was asked. For each of the other reflections a suggestion was provided for a reflection topic. Other opportunities for reflection were included with questionnaires at the beginning and end of the course, as well as presentations including one describing one thing the group had learned.The individual experiences of students in a first major group project course allow a range of reflections to occur, from ideas about planning, group work, problem solving and design being potential areas for discussion. Evaluation here is restricted to the instructors observations and not a detailed analysis of the student’s reflection work. This is an early examination of reflection and meta-cognition of the students but there areindications that students are taking the first steps in considering their approaches to project and design work.
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 | 0.009 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.006 |
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".