El Jury en Proyectos Arquitectónicos como acción crítica, y mecanismo dual de coordinación vertical y transversal en la docencia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
[SPA] La asignatura de Proyectos Arquitectónicos del grado de Arquitectura precisa de un instrumento de valoración crítica con el que poder evaluar de una manera global la consecución de objetivos por parte del alumnado, pero también por parte del profesorado. El Jury se configura, así como una herramienta de acción crítica y mecanismo dual de coordinación vertical y transversal en la docencia universitaria. Con una metodología y puesta en escena bien definida, el Jury es algo más que una sesión crítica. Representa un sistema de coordinación de toda un Área de la Escuela de Arquitectura. Asimismo, el Jury sirve para que la asignatura de Proyectos establezca lazos de conexión con el resto de asignaturas con las que convive en el grado: Urbanismo, Expresión Gráfica, Construcción, Estructuras, entre otras. Esta experiencia de innovación docente se ha estado desarrollando durante los últimos dos cursos académicos –tres ediciones, por tanto, dos Jury’s de invierno y uno de verano- en la Escuela de Arquitectura de la UPCT, con resultados tan satisfactorios que afianzan su posición y aseguran su celebración en próximas ocasiones. [ENG] The subject of Architectural Projects in the Degree in Architecture requires a critical appraisal instrument in order to globally assess students’ achievements, but also professors’ ones. In this way, the Jury becomes a tool of review as well as a mechanism of both vertical and cross-cutting coordination in university teaching. With a well-defined methodology and mise-en-scène the Jury is more than a critical session. It represents a coordination system for a whole Area in the School of Architecture. Likewise, the Jury is used for creating connections between Architectural Projects and the rest of the degree subjects: Urban Planning, Graphic Expression, Construction and Structures, among others. This experience of educational innovation has been developed in the School of Architecture in UPCT for the last two academic years –that means three editions: two in wintertime and one in summertime- with satisfactory results that consolidate its position and ensure its next editions.
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 | 0.009 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.029 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.003 |
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".