Evaluation approach of the mechanical engineering competency test certification using the assessment evaluability and performance monitoring model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research aims to gain an overview of the evaluation results and the many challenges to implementing machining competency test certification (CTC) in Vocational High Schools (VHS). The research approach to evaluating this program is a qualitative method using the analysis of Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS). The program evaluation design in this study uses the Assessment Evaluability and Performance Monitoring (AEPM) model, which has four evaluation components: Context, Inputs, Activities, and Performance Monitoring. The subjects involved in data collection through the distribution of questionnaires of five VHS in the Special Capital Region of Jakarta. The technique of determining all subjects using the Purposive Sampling technique. The results showed the level of effectiveness of the implementation of the machining CTC program. Some dimensions need to be strengthened, especially for the “less and “very lacking” category. Finally, the approach presented in this research using the AEPM model is a step forward in the analysis of the CTC program. This approach can easily be replicated in other countries with similar aims as this research.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.018 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".