Biosystems engineering students’ experiences and perceptions of selfreflection and e-portfolios
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Biosystems engineering students at the University of Manitoba participated in a voluntary workshop series as an extracurricular professional development opportunity. The five-workshop series was designed to engage students in reflection and self-reflection as a foundation for the development of e-portfolios to document their learning over time. Following the workshop series, focus group interviews were held with voluntary participants to explore their perceptions and experiences with self-reflection relative to e-portfolios. Themes that emerged from the focus group data related to i) the value of self-reflection as an activity, ii) the value of e-portfolios for career success, iii) observations of the biosystems engineering curriculum and iv) concerns about the status of the biosystems engineering discipline in the engineering community. The motivations to consider an e-portfolio were immediately focused on job-finding, and within that, on clarifying biosystems engineering both to themselves, to other students outside of biosystems engineering, and employers.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it