Student partnership in creating an event: Benefits, challenges, and outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This case study explores a partnership within an events management topic. Students were encouraged to take ownership over the creation and operation of an event held on the university campus. The topic lecturer provided guidance throughout the process and liaised with the students to define the assessment and the marking rubric for the event project. Research data was captured through two surveys—one during the event project and one after the event project was completed. The surveys captured quantitative and qualitative data about students’ perceptions on the benefits, challenges, and outcomes of this experiential learning experience. Survey findings indicated that communication and teamwork were key aspects that needed to be managed to effectively collaborate on the project. Classroom discussion and online communication tools were used to share ideas and information, and work towards the common goals of the event. Through this project, students developed their relationships with their peers and university staff and felt that they had a valuable learning experience that helped to connect theory with practice.
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 | 0.023 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.021 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".