MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3181716525 · doi:10.24908/pceea.vi0.14845

TRADITIONAL VERSUS OPEN-BOOK EXAMS IN REMOTE COURSE DELIVERY: A NARRATIVE REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

2021· review· en· W3181716525 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Anita Parker, Ellen Watson, Nicole Dyck, Jason P. Carey

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA) · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAcademic integrity and plagiarism
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersUniversity of Alberta
KeywordsNarrativeContext (archaeology)Construct (python library)Narrative reviewPsychologyProcess (computing)Medical educationComputer scienceMedicineHistoryArtLiterature

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Assessment is an essential step in the teaching and learning process. Traditional examination methods (closed-book, time-constrained, invigilated, multiplechoice) prevail in higher education despite support foralternative approaches wherein students construct knowledge through active, authentic activities. A review ofthe scholarly literature focused on merits and limitations of traditional closed-book exams in-person and in anonline, remote course delivery context, as well as benefits, concerns, and considerations of transitioning to open-book exams at a time of upsurge in online learning. Within the dichotomy of traditional versus alterative exam strategies, the literature is inconclusive on shared matters, including student academic integrity, study habits, anxiety, performance, and long-term retention of information.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.120
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.285 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations20
Published2021
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA)Same topicAcademic integrity and plagiarismFrench-language works237,207