MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4240749885 · doi:10.18260/1-2--31248

WIP: Decoding a Discipline – Toward Identifying Threshold Concepts in Geomatics Engineering

2020· article· en· W4240749885 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAI-based Problem Solving and Planning
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeomaticsFormative assessmentComputer scienceEngineering educationSummative assessmentGeospatial analysisArtificial intelligenceEngineeringEngineering managementMathematics educationGeographyRemote sensingMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This is a work-in-progress paper on a descriptive or a ‘what is’ type of teaching and learning project related to deep learning of fundamental knowledge in geomatics engineering. On the hard-soft and pure-applied spectrums the discipline of geomatics engineering can be classified as hard and applied. This makes sustaining an environment for deep learning, as opposed to superficial learning, of core geomatics engineering knowledge a challenging task. This environment sometimes comes at the cost of instructors of higher level courses having to repeatedly review concepts taught in lower level courses. As a result, little time is left for tackling advanced learning outcomes. This problem can be mitigated by assessing the current learning environments in core geomatics engineering courses and, more specifically, identifying threshold concepts or areas of troublesome knowledge in these courses; developing and implementing a collection of learning resources and teaching activities to address these matters; and observing and analyzing the effect of using these resources and activities on geomatics engineering students. This paper will focus on the first part of the problem, namely, what methods to use in order to assess the learning environment and detect the threshold concepts in select geomatics engineering courses. The authors propose a series of questionnaires, observation sessions, and reflection meetings where students in their second and third year of geomatics engineering will be invited to participate. The questionnaires will be formative minute papers on muddy concepts throughout the semester, and summative end-of-term surveys asking the students to describe their learning experience during the semester. The observation sessions will be in-class (teacher-student interactions) and think-aloud (individual or in groups). The reflection meetings will be conducted after certain exams, tutorials or labs, where the students will be given the opportunity to express their opinions on the learning objectives involved. In addition, grades from midterm and final exams will be analyzed for any alignment between the concepts in question and the respective student performance. This part of the project will be run for two years, so the authors will be seeking input from the engineering education community in order to improve the study in its second iteration.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.787
Threshold uncertainty score0.554

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.235 · 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

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAI-based Problem Solving and PlanningFrench-language works237,207