Fairness in Student Allocation and Group Formation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Allocating students to projects is a commonplace task in computing education. These decisions underpin student-supervisor allocation, the formation of tutee and capstone groups, and pair programming. These allocations play a critical role for individual learner outcomes and the success of collaborative interventions. For example, imbalance in either gender, ethnicity, or nationality can negatively impact learner outcomes. Despite the critical importance of these allocation choices, we see little consensus on how these are implemented. The allocation task can be challenging and time-consuming for instructors of even moderately-sized classes, and the fairness implications can be difficult to assess. Inadvertently, an instructor may allocate in a way that amplifies existing biases or disproportionately harms those from disadvantaged or protected groups. From students' perspectives, a lack of transparency on the allocation process may also lead to issues of trust. The Working Group will undertake a study of allocation practices by bringing together educational and ML literature to develop and evaluate the fairness of allocation methods, and develop educator guidelines to promote pedagogically grounded allocation practices.
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 | 0.203 | 0.400 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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".