MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4319439102 · doi:10.31038/ijnm.2022332

Peer-to-Peer Evaluation: Kritik Pilot at Two Post- secondary Canadian Institutions

2022· article· en· W4319439102 on OpenAlexaffabout
Kimberley Ryan, Kristen A. Hardy

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicStudent Assessment and Feedback
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WinnipegBrandon University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPeer reviewPeer-to-peerPolitical sciencePsychologyMedical educationPublic relationsComputer scienceMedicineWorld Wide WebLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 2021/2022, educators at two Canadian universities chose to use a novel pedagogical approach to undergraduate program learning and instruction. Kritik, an on-line platform was selected because of its reputation for encouraging peer-to-peer learning and evaluation through use of Bloom's Taxonomy of Learning to promote critical thinking skill development in learners. In this article, we outline our experiences while piloting use of Kritik, provide a critical assessment of its use and share our pedagogical lessons learned.

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.710
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1000.001

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 head0.088
GPT teacher head0.401
Teacher spread0.314 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicStudent Assessment and FeedbackFrench-language works237,207