MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405021206 · doi:10.30743/n7r8fe71

Study on the Implementation of Capstone Projects in Various Countries

2024· article· en· W4405021206 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Luthfi Parinduri, Muhammad Ikhsan Harahap

Bibliographic record

VenueProceeding of International Conference on Science and Technology UISU. · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEducational Reforms and Innovations
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCapstoneEngineering managementBusinessEngineering ethicsComputer scienceEngineeringComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study examines the implementation of capstone projects at ten leading universities from various countries, namely the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), University of Cambridge, University of Tokyo, University of Sydney, University of Cape Town (UCT), University of Toronto, ÉcoleNormaleSupérieure (ENS) Paris, Peking University, University of Melbourne, and Cairo University. The study explores how each institution designs and executes its capstone projects, along with the challenges and opportunities they encounter. The key findings indicate that all universities integrate cutting-edge technology and emphasize practical testing, although there are variations in project focus that reflect local contexts. Common challenges include technology integration and change management, while opportunities for improvement encompass enhanced infrastructure, additional training, and industry partnerships. The study provides recommendations for educational institutions and policymakers on how to improve the execution of capstone projects and strengthen graduate relevance. Suggestions for future research include exploring the long-term impacts of capstone projects and the role of industry partnerships in enhancing project outcomes. This study offers insights into best practices and strategies to enhance the quality and effectiveness of capstone projects globally.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.645
Threshold uncertainty score0.240

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.045
GPT teacher head0.366
Teacher spread0.321 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceeding of International Conference on Science and Technology UISU.Same topicEducational Reforms and InnovationsFrench-language works237,207