Bibliographic record
Abstract
A Computer Science degree is offered by Victoria University both locally in Australia and transnationally in Hong Kong. The degree includes a compulsory final year Project subject. The Project, a team effort, involves the design and implementation of a real-life computer application for an external client. Academics responsible for the degree consider Project and its three components of group context, project-based problems, and outside focus essential to transforming computing students into competent graduates. Do Project students support this view? This paper reports on a comparative study of the students' perceptions of the project experience and the relative importance of its three components. The paper discusses the results of the study with respect to the different locales, Melbourne and Hong Kong, and concludes by considering the implications of the study on the Project model. Erratum : This paper is slightly edited from: Miliszewska, I., & Horwood, J. (2004). Engagement Theory: A Framework for Supporting Cultural Differences in Transnational Education, Proceedings of the HERDSA Conference, Miri, Malaysia, July 2004, (electronic proceedings). This is a revised and extended version of: Miliszewska, I., Horwood J., & McGill, A. (2003). Transnational Education through Engagement: Students Perspective, Proceedings of the Informing Science and IT Education Conference IS2003, Pori, Finland, June 2003, 165-173.
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 | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.043 | 0.007 |
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".