MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3001645451 · doi:10.24908/pceea.vi0.13786

INVESTIGATING STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF FIRST-YEAR ENGINEERING TUTORIALS

2019· article· en· W3001645451 on OpenAlex
Maria Miqdadi, Jeffrey Harris

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA) · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEngineering Education and Pedagogy
Canadian institutionsYork University
FundersYork University
KeywordsPerceptionVariety (cybernetics)Class (philosophy)PsychologyMedical educationMathematics educationPedagogyComputer scienceMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The main purpose and goal of this research project is to investigate first year engineering tutorials. There are many aspects involved in a successful academic experience and we hope to understand students’ perceptions of first-year tutorials. Tutorials are an integral part in the learning experience as they allow for more participation and engagement from the students. We created two surveys surrounding these topics to get an understanding of York Student’s experience with and perceptions of first-year tutorials. Each survey received 50 or more responses. The results had a wide variety in some areas such as how they prefer the class to be laid out and how they felt about their TA’s.

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 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)0.001
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 score0.071
Threshold uncertainty score0.992

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.220
Teacher spread0.214 · 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