GATHERING THE VOICE OF THE STUDENTS FOR ACCREDITATION PURPOSES THROUGH THEIR DEFINITION OF “ENGINEER”
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper proposes a novel indirect assessment method to capture the voice of the students for program accreditation purposes. It consists of asking students, individually and then in teams, to draw up a list of keywords they associate with being an engineer and to write a formal definition of engineer. The raw data (list of keywords and definitions) is closed coded for the twelve graduate attributes (GAs) defined by Engineers Canada. First-year, mid-program and last-year students participated in the study in order to verify change of perception as students advance through the program. Results are compared for individual and teams, as well as for the different student populations. Sufficient insight into the program’s contribution to the development of graduate attributes in its student population (or apparent lack thereof), information that can be used for continual program improvement, was gained to warrant internal validity of the method.
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 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 | 0.001 | 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 it