ACTIVE LEARNING IN A SECOND YEAR SURVEYING COURSE
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
As a course that develops both cognitive and psychomotor skills of geomatics engineering students, the second-year surveying course at the University of Calgary has been re-designed to include more active, constructive and interactive learning experiences. Classroom activities have been designed around the idea that a balance between the four levels of learning in the ICAP (interactive-constructive-active-passive) framework should be achieved. Passive learning is acceptable because it provides students with time to accumulate knowledge and overcome their initial uncertainty in the surveying classroom. Eventually, their learning undergoes transformation most notably during the interactive team-based field labs. 
 An observation protocol has been designed, which, in addition to mapping student learning, assesses the teaching and learning environment and specifically its student cognitive and behavioural engagement aspects. The provisional results in winter 2019 confirmed that the geomatics engineering students were more engaged in the learning process as the time spent practicing active and constructive learning accounted for 78% of the class time in three observed lectures.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| 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 it