MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7117138348 · doi:10.1152/advan.00190.2025

Improving the quality of TA feedback in scientific writing assignments using structured course-specific training

2025· article· en· W7117138348 on OpenAlexafffund
Faraj L. Haddad, Clara Schott, Jina J.Y. Kum

Bibliographic record

VenueAJP Advances in Physiology Education · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEvaluation of Teaching Practices
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersWestern University
KeywordsCornerstoneScientific writingIntervention (counseling)Quality (philosophy)Training (meteorology)PerceptionPeer feedbackGuideline

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Teaching assistants (TAs) are often the main source of feedback on scientific writing in undergraduate physiology and biomedical science courses, but most have not been trained to do it well. We created a course-level intervention to help graduate TAs give more useful feedback. Our practical approach, which involved a 1-day workshop and the development of course-specific feedback guidelines, can be scaled and adapted to improve the teaching and learning of scientific communication skills.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.606
Threshold uncertainty score0.408

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.138
GPT teacher head0.506
Teacher spread0.367 · 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
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAJP Advances in Physiology EducationSame topicEvaluation of Teaching PracticesFrench-language works237,207