MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

iGEM Team Meetings: Settings for Conversations on Teaching & Learning

2017· article· en· W4400898005 on OpenAlexaffabout
Mayi Arcellana‐Panlilio, Elke M. Lohmeier‐Vogel

Bibliographic record

VenuePapers on postsecondary learning and teaching. · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicInnovative Teaching and Learning Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedical educationPsychologyComputer scienceMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Every November, the University of Calgary iGEM (international Genetically Engineered Machines) team presents their synthetic biology project to the world. Weekly team meetings are a microcosm of the iGEM experience of bringing ideas to fruition. The peer teaching, mentoring, and consultations that occur at these meetings are triggers for deeper conversations on teaching and learning. In the workshop described here, participants were invited to experience a simulated iGEM team meeting environment, where instead of synthetic biology, issues of teaching and learning were the subject of their conversations.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.059
Threshold uncertainty score0.197

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0130.003
Scholarly communication0.0060.004
Open science0.0030.018
Research integrity0.0050.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0590.020

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.379
Teacher spread0.349 · 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 designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePapers on postsecondary learning and teaching.Same topicInnovative Teaching and Learning MethodsFrench-language works237,207