MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3135452851 · doi:10.1111/ivb.12322

Sex, camouflage, marvelous adaptations: A writing assignment that inspires

2021· article· en· W3135452851 on OpenAlexaff
A. Richard Palmer

Bibliographic record

VenueInvertebrate Biology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAnimal and Plant Science Education
Canadian institutionsBamfield Marine Sciences CentreUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRubricScripting languageComputer scienceThe InternetWorld Wide WebWeb pageMathematics educationPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Writing assignments offer valuable student learning experiences in both live and online courses. But concerns about the challenges and extra work of marking, and about plagiarism, often deter instructors from using them. I used a writing assignment successfully over 20 years in a one‐term invertebrate biology course, despite enrolments exceeding 100. Structured to maximally engage students yet minimize marking load, the assignment often yielded gems of stories for use in subsequent lectures. The Annotated Bibliography assignment asks students: (a) to précis the justification, main results, and significance of three papers from the primary scientific literature in under 250 words each, and (b) to provide a short (150 word) summary of the broader story connecting the three papers. Students liked this assignment because they could choose any aspect of the biology of any invertebrate genus. This inspired them to explore the literature out of personal interest. It's appealing for instructors, because annotations are compact and therefore easy to read, mark, and inspect for plagiarism. It is appealing to host universities, because it generates extensive use of library resources and motivates students to learn how to use them, and online taxonomic databases, effectively. Here I provide: (a) instructions for this assignment, (b) a straightforward marking rubric, (c) two examples of excellent submissions, and (d) comments on the risk and extent of plagiarism. Appendices provide: detailed instructions, a sample annotation with comments to guide student writing, an online submission web page, an online administrator web page, and PHP scripts for both web pages. Finally, I summarize topics and taxa from nearly 2,000 submissions. The five most popular taxa were cephalopods, insects, malacostracan crustaceans, gastropods, and arachnids. Although aspects of sex or reproduction, and camouflage or mimicry were the most popular topics, one paper on extreme limb movements in stomatopods was cited the most.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.053
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.042
Threshold uncertainty score0.141

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.053
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0420.024

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 head0.077
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.250 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInvertebrate BiologySame topicAnimal and Plant Science EducationFrench-language works237,207