MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3035933972 · doi:10.24908/pceea.vi0.14167

HOW STUDENTS DEFINE THEIR SUCCESS: A RESEARCH STUDY

2020· article· en· W3035933972 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Max Ullrich, David S. Strong

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA) · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEngineering Education and Curriculum Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPlan (archaeology)Diversity (politics)Inclusion (mineral)Survey instrumentPsychologyMedical educationMathematics educationApplied psychologyMedicineSociologySocial psychologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

How undergraduate engineering students define their success and plan for their future differs notably amongst students. With a push for greater diversity and inclusion in engineering schools, it is valuable to also better understand the differences in these areas among different students to allow institutions to better serve the needs of these diverse groups. The purpose of this research study is to explore students’ definition of success both in the present and projecting forward 5 to 10 years, as well as to understand to what level students reflect on, and plan for, the future. The proposed survey instrument for the pilot stage of this research includes 56 closed-ended questions and 3 open-ended questions. Evidence for the validity of the research instrument is established through a mixed-method pilot study. This paper will discuss the survey instrument, the pilot study, and outline plans for the full study.

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)0.001
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 score0.082
Threshold uncertainty score0.807

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.231 · 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

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA)Same topicEngineering Education and Curriculum DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207