A Short History of Grading Practices at Dalhousie University (1901-2021)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Grading practices at Dalhousie University have changed considerably over the past 120 years. From 1901 until the early 1970s, Dalhousie used a variant of the British system. Initially, a grade of 65% or higher was required for distinction. In 1937, Dalhousie moved to a 2-category system (Distinction vs. Ordinary Pass) and in 1942 the distinction grade cutoff was lowered to 60%. By the late 1940s, “Second Division” was subdivided into Seconds and Thirds, and First Division required an 80% or higher. By the late 1960s, there were conversions between American letter grades (A, B, C, D), divisions, and percentage grades. Moreover, a 4pt “merit point” system served as a prototype to Grade Point Averages (GPA). Experimental teaching and grading practices were explored in the 1970s. Officially, percentage grades were abolished and replaced with an 11-point letter grade scale from A+ to F. Unofficially, most professors and departments used idiosyncratic percentage-to-letter conversion schemes, though they were eventually standardized within (but not across) departments. In the 1990s, the 4.3 GPA system was standardized university-wide largely because it was thought to give students a competitive advantage for federal scholarships. In the 2010s, Dalhousie standardized percentage conversion schemes across all departments into one unified Common Grade Scale, partially due to GPA requirements for scholarships and graduate schools but also in response to student complaints about inconsistency. Overall, most grading changes in the past 120 years were implemented for the external communication value of grades rather than for their pedagogical value.
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 | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.067 | 0.042 |
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".