Sex, camouflage, marvelous adaptations: A writing assignment that inspires
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.004 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".