Elementos clave de una base sólida que estructure la docencia de arquitectura
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Se presentan los resultados de una encuesta realizada al alumnado de 7 escuelas de la Península Ibérica. Un total de 1.255 personas que han respondido a un cuestionario diseñado para estudiar el perfil de los nuevos estudiantes y su posición dentro del proceso de aprendizaje. Se cuestiona el método docente que sigue las directrices del Plan Bolonia, buscando sus opiniones sobre los demás componentes del proceso didáctico: el profesorado, la escuela y el propio plan de estudios. La importancia de este estudio reside en la obtención y comparativa de respuestas, entre escuelas públicas y privadas, tradicionales y de reciente creación, con pocas decenas de estudiantes o con miles, en España y en Portugal. El análisis de los resultados dará como conclusión una serie de elementos clave que podrán mejorar la docencia, introduciendo cambios en el plan de estudios, en la escuela o en la relación entre docente y estudiante. The results of a survey carried out among the students of 7 schools in the Iberian Peninsula are presented. A total of 1,255 people responded to the questionnaire designed to study the profile of new students and their position within the education system. The teaching methods that follow the guidelines of the Bologna Plan are questioned, seeking their opinions on the other components of the didactic process: the teaching staff, the school and the curriculum itself. The importance of this study resides in obtaining and comparing responses, between public and private, traditional and recently created schools, with a few dozen students or thousands, in Spain and Portugal. The analysis of results will conclude with a series of key elements that can improve teaching, introducing changes in the curriculum, in the school or in the relationship between teacher and student.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".