MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3001335578 · doi:10.24908/pceea.vi0.13797

GRADE PREDICTORS IN A SECONDARY SUMMER COURSE OFFERING: AN INVESTIGATION OF PRIOR FAILURES AND EMPLOYMENT

2019· article· en· W3001335578 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Julie Vale, Ryan Clemmer

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA) · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicOnline Learning and Analytics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersUniversity of Ottawa
KeywordsAttendanceWorkloadMedical educationMathematics educationPsychologyWork (physics)Term (time)Academic institutionComputer scienceEngineeringMedicineLibrary sciencePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A second year electrical circuits course at the author’s home institution was historically delivered in the winter term to one section of approximately 400 students. The department observed that approximately 70-100 students were losing a year of school due to the combined high fail rates and single offerings of this course and its prerequisite. To allow these students to remain on track in their programs, additional offerings of both courses were created. The secondary offering of the circuits course was offered in the summer term. 
 This paper presents a statistical analysis of data obtained over two years of the summer offering of the circuits course. After correcting for GPA and attendance, prior failures in both courses and having a job (co-op or otherwise) are shown to have no statistical significance.
 These results indicate that concerns around employment workload and sufficient time to study appear to be unfounded and that the fact that a student has failed in the past does not predict their future grades.
 This preliminary work is part of a larger research project investigating the impact of an online, blended delivery approach on attendance, student perception of learning, and impact on grades.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.945

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.211 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2019
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA)Same topicOnline Learning and AnalyticsFrench-language works237,207