MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4308802268 · doi:10.24908/pceea.vi.15859

Development and Assessment of a Training Module on Intellectual Property Literacy

2022· article· en· W4308802268 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Pranav Gavirneni, Jenn Coggan, Wayne Chang, Chris Rennick, Esteban Veintimilla

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA) · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBiomedical and Engineering Education
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of Waterloo
KeywordsCapstoneIntellectual propertyProcess (computing)LiteracyComputer scienceAsynchronous communicationSet (abstract data type)Asynchronous learningEngineeringWorld Wide WebMathematics educationPsychologyPedagogyTeaching methodSynchronous learningCooperative learningTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper describes an online, asynchronous learning module on intellectual property (IP) awareness. The learning module described in this paper is the first of a planned set designed as online asynchronous learning activities to give students the foundational knowledge required to practice and develop associated skills to understand the IP landscape and identify and recognize potential new IP opportunities. The first learning module, titled “IP Literacy,” provides an introduction to IP topics including patents, trademarks, copyrights and creative commons, trade secrets, industrial design, and collaboration; and includes curated videos by experts, plus valuable additional tools and resources. The design of the first module was based upon input from capstone course instructors, students and alumni and has undergone a process of pilot-testing and revision. Based on this feedback, the IP Literacy module was designed in the summer/fall of 2021 and was tested with a small population of undergraduate students to refine the content. A pilot offering to one discipline of students took place in the fall 2021 term, before expanding to additional groups in winter 2022. Survey feedback collected from fall 2021 and winter 2022 pilot offerings of the module was generally positive, with the majority of students agreeing that they learned something, and that the module was relevant to their discipline. This paper will summarize this development and pilot-testing process and discuss the next steps for the project.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.005

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.201 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA)Same topicBiomedical and Engineering EducationFrench-language works237,207