Analysis of Student Utilization and Activities in a Campus Innovation Center
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The ABC Innovation Center has served our campus for six years providing support for competition teams, capstone and class projects, a maker space, and other campus activities. The 16,000 sq ft building provides project space, supervision, and access to fabrication and prototyping resources. The innovation center has been a popular and increasingly utilized resource with student entries to the building increasing 1.35 times in the last two years. This paper will report on student utilization of our innovation center through the analysis of activity records. Over the years of operation of the center, multiple measures of student activity and utilization have been collected including lock logs, team rosters, and training completions. This paper will analyze these sources of data and report on several aspects of growth and utilization of the center including a. overall level of student activity over the last three years, b. student activity broken down by time of year, quarter, and day, c. student gender and class year, and d. student participation in training classes. The paper will also report on assessment approaches that have been used and general student feedback on the center and activities. It is believed that these results are useful in a variety of situations including prioritizing center activities, marketing the program to students, allocating space, scheduling staff, and determining overall resource needs.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".