Advising Student-Driven Analytics Projects: A Summary of Experiences and Lessons Learned
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, we describe a course project in which teams of undergraduate students propose and execute an end-to-end analytics project to solve a real-world problem. The project challenges students to implement machine learning, optimization, simulation, or a combination of these three techniques on real-world data that they collect. A designated project advisor helps each team refine its project and assesses the quality of the resulting work. In our analysis of 58 past projects, we show that students developed solutions for a wide range of topics by employing various methodologies. However, most teams encountered similar challenges that project advisors helped them overcome with tailored feedback. Based on feedback from 106 previous students, the project experience was largely positive and helped them prepare for their future careers. We believe that this type of hands-on project is conducive to the development of important data analytics skills. Supplemental Material: The online supplement is available at https://doi.org/10.1287/ited.2022.0275 .
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 | 0.021 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".