OMG-OCUP-300 Exam Questions - OMG-Certified UML Professional Advanced (OMG-OCUP2-ADV300) Updated: 2024

An exam proctor will begin reading exam instructions approximately 15 minutes before the exam start time. Students must be in the exam room with their exam at this time. If taking the exam on a laptop, it must be booted up and have passed the security check. Hand writers must not have a laptop with them in an exam room, unless otherwise allowed according to the professor’s instructions. A student entering the exam room after the proctor begins reading instructions will not receive additional time for booting up their laptop, passing the security check, and/or reading exam instructions.

When instructed by the proctor, write your exam number on the cover page of your exam, bluebooks, and any scratch paper you turn in as part of your exam. Handwritten exam answers must be written in blue books in blue or black ink. Number the bluebooks you use (1 of 1, 1 of 2, 2 of 2, etc.). Proctors will allow time to read the professor’s instructions. Other than counting the number of pages of the exam, students are not permitted to turn the page of an exam past the instructions page until the proctor instructs them to do so.

When taking a closed-book exam, no books, outlines, book bags, purses, or scratch paper (other than the scratch paper provided) may be at your seat during the exam. These items must be left outside of the exam room or in the front or sides of the exam room. Students may not begin to write anything, including on scratch paper, before the proctor begins a closed-book exam.

Students taking in-class exams are prohibited from having any electronic communication device, other than a laptop as allowed per the professor's instructions, during the exam. Cell phones and smart watches must be turned off during the exam and placed in a bag or backpack. Violations of this rule may be considered an Honor Code violation. A clock in each exam room will be the official timekeeper for the exam.

Non-alcoholic beverages are permitted in exam rooms; however, the container must have a lid.

After the exam instructions have been read and the exam begins, the proctor will remain in the room. Any student who has a question or problem during an exam should see the proctor.

Students may use the restroom or take a break during an exam. However, all exam materials must be left in the exam room and no additional time will be given. Students must sign in and out at the front of the room with the proctor.

Spring 2024

For Fall semesters, there will be one reading day on Monday of the first exam week and one reading day on Friday of the first exam week. For Spring semesters, there will be two reading days at the beginning of the first exam week.

Final exams are scheduled by the Registrar's Office based on the meeting pattern of the class with the exception of certain basic course sequences that enroll large numbers of first-year students listed below. This schedule avoids direct conflicts for students and minimizes the number of students with more than two exams on a single day.

Any change to assigned final exam dates and time requires additional approvals. Undergraduate students who have exam questions should contact their four-year advisor. Faculty and staff who have questions should contact courses@case.edu.

The course sequences listed below are scheduled outside of the normal exam grid because portions of the sequences enroll large numbers of first-year students. The special scheduling of these exams helps spread out final exams for these students.

A federal circuit judge wants the Supreme Court to scrap a longstanding test for determining what is cruel and unusual punishment. In an October speech to the Federalist Society, Reuters reported, Judge Thomas Hardiman, appointed by President George W. Bush to the Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit, advocated a "return to the text and original meaning of the Eighth Amendment" and an end to the "evolving standards of decency" test created by the Supreme Court in the 1950s.

In 1958, the Supreme Court ruled that stripping someone's citizenship for committing a crime violated the Eighth Amendment. Supreme Court Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote that, to determine what constitutes cruel or unusual, the Court "must draw its meaning from the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society." That test has since been used by liberal Supreme Court majorities to strike down death penalty protocols, ban capital sentences for crimes that did not result in death, and outlaw death sentences for offenses committed as a minor.

Hardiman called the test a "contrived ratchet" that has fueled a "runaway train of elastic constitutionalism."

"Its inscrutable standards require judges to ignore the law as written in favor of their own moral sentiments," he said. "The only constant is that more and more laws adopted by the people's representatives have been nullified."

Hardiman isn't alone in his contempt for the test and its offspring. In May, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis signed a bill into law allowing the death penalty for child rape. The law is unconstitutional under current precedent, but the Republican governor is attempting to tee up a case for the Supreme Court's current conservative majority to reconsider that.

To return to the original meaning of the Eighth Amendment would be tricky, though, because the historical record of its adoption is limited and its tradition is contradictory.

The phrase "cruel and unusual" was lifted from the English Bill of Rights of 1689 and included in Virginia's 1776 Declaration of Rights. Based on this, many originalists argue the Founding Fathers were concerned with two things: stopping the new federal government from legalizing European-style torture, and limiting arbitrary and grossly disproportionate capital punishment.

Americans were disgusted with England's despotic criminal code, which by the end of the 18th century included over 200 capital offenses. But the early republic was inconsistent in practice. Virginia still allowed whipping, branding, and ear cropping.

If Americans thought themselves better than Europe's gory spectacles, the reformist penitentiaries created to replace them were home to similar horrors. Nineteenth century American prisons disciplined inmates through floggings, "shower baths" that simulated drowning, and shackling them in excruciating stress positions. A pregnant woman and a mentally ill man were whipped to death in New York's Auburn State Prison in 1825 and 1846, respectively.

The Bill of Rights only applied to the federal government then. It wasn't until 1910 that the Supreme Court issued a major Eighth Amendment opinion, ruling that a 15-year sentence to cadena temporal—hard labor while perpetually shackled—constituted cruel and unusual punishment.

Supreme Court Justice Joseph McKenna noted in his majority opinion in that case, Weems v. United States, that the record concerning the ratification of the Eighth Amendment was sparse, but he argued that the Founding Fathers didn't include it merely to ban thumbscrews. "Their predominant political impulse was distrust of power, and they insisted on constitutional limitations against its abuse," McKenna wrote. "But surely they intended more than to register a fear of the forms of abuse that went out of practice with the Stuarts. Surely, their jealousy of power had a saner justification than that. They were men of action, practical and sagacious, not beset with vain imagining, and it must have come to them that there could be exercises of cruelty by laws other than those which inflicted bodily pain or mutilation."

Hardiman is correct that the "evolving standards" test is a blunt political tool. Standards do not always evolve the way progressives would prefer, despite aspirational rulings from liberal justices. But the impoverished Eighth Amendment that Hardiman and other conservative jurists would prefer would be nothing but a museum exhibit, giving license to the most punitive fantasies of lawmakers short of bringing back the rack and breaking wheel.

CNN  — 

ChatGPT might not be a cure-all for answers to medical questions, a new study suggests.

Researchers at Long Island University posed 39 medication-related queries to the free version of the artificial intelligence chatbot, all of which were real questions from the university’s College of Pharmacy drug information service. The software’s answers were then compared with responses written and reviewed by trained pharmacists.

The study found that ChatGPT provided accurate responses to only about 10 of the questions, or about a quarter of the total. For the other 29 prompts, the answers were incomplete or inaccurate, or they did not address the questions.

The findings were presented Tuesday at the annual meeting of the American Society for Health-Systems Pharmacists in Anaheim, California.

ChatGPT, OpenAI’s experimental AI chatbot, was released in November 2022 and became the fastest-growing consumer application in history, with nearly 100 million people registering within two months.

Given that popularity, the researchers’ interest was sparked by concern that their students, other pharmacists and ordinary consumers would turn to resources like ChatGPT to explore questions about their health and medication plans, said Sara Grossman, an associate professor of pharmacy practice at Long Island University and one of the study’s authors.

Those queries, they found, often yielded inaccurate – or even dangerous – responses.

In one question, for example, researchers asked ChatGPT whether the Covid-19 antiviral medication Paxlovid and the blood-pressure lowering medication verapamil would react with each other in the body. ChatGPT responded that taking the two medications together would yield no adverse effects.

In reality, people who take both medications might have a large drop in blood pressure, which can cause dizziness and fainting. For patients taking both, clinicians often create patient-specific plans, including lowering the dose of verapamil or cautioning the person to get up slowly from a sitting position, Grossman said.

ChatGPT’s guidance, she added, would have put people in harm’s way.

“Using ChatGPT to address this question would put a patient at risk for an unwanted and preventable drug interaction,” Grossman wrote in an email to CNN.

When the researchers asked the chatbot for scientific references to support each of its responses, they found that the software could provide them for only eight of the questions they asked. And in each case, they were surprised to find that ChatGPT was fabricating references.

At first glance, the citations looked legitimate: They were often formatted appropriately, provided URLs and were listed under legitimate scientific journals. But when the team attempted to find the referenced articles, they realized that ChatGPT had given them fictional citations.

In one case, the researchers asked ChatGPT how to convert spinal injection doses of the muscle spasm medication baclofen to corresponding oral doses. Grossman’s team could not find a scientifically established dose conversion ratio, but ChatGPT put forth a single conversion rate and cited two medical organizations’ guidance, she said.

However, neither organization provides any official guidance on the dose conversion rate. In fact, the conversion factor that ChatGPT suggested had never been scientifically established. The software also provided an example calculation for the dose conversion but with a critical mistake: It mixed up units when calculating the oral dose, throwing off the dose recommendation by a factor of 1,000.

If that guidance was followed by a health care professional, Grossman said, they might give a patient an oral baclofen dose 1,000 times lower than required, which could cause withdrawal symptoms like hallucinations and seizures.

“There were numerous errors and “problems’ with this response and ultimately, it could have a profound impact on patient care,” she wrote.

The Long Island University study is not the first to raise concerns about ChatGPT’s fictional citations. Previous research has also documented that, when asked medical questions, ChatGPT can create deceptive forgeries of scientific references, even listing the names of real authors with previous publications in scientific journals.

Grossman, who had worked little with the software before the study, was surprised by how confidently ChatGPT was able to synthesize information nearly instantaneously, answers that would take trained professionals hours to compile.

“The responses were phrased in a very professional and sophisticated manner, and it just seemed it can contribute to a sense of confidence in the accuracy of the tool,” she said. “A user, a consumer, or others that may not be able to discern can be swayed by the appearance of authority.”

A spokesperson for OpenAI, the organization that develops ChatGPT, said it advises users not to rely on responses as a substitute for professional medical advice or treatment.

The spokesperson pointed to ChatGPT’s usage policies, which indicate that “OpenAI’s models are not fine-tuned to provide medical information.” The policy also states that the models should never be used to provide “diagnostic or treatment services for serious medical conditions.”

Although Grossman was unsure of how many people use ChatGPT to address medication questions, she raised concerns that they could use the chatbot like they would search for medical advice on search engines like Google.

“People are always looking for instantaneous responses when they have this at their fingertips,” Grossman said. “I think that this is just another approach of using ‘Dr. Google’ and other seemingly easy methods of obtaining information.”

For online medical information, she recommended that consumers use governmental websites that provide reputable information, like the National Institutes of Health’s MedlinePlus page.

Still, Grossman doesn’t believe that online answers can replace the advice of a health care professional.

“[Websites are] maybe one starting point, but they can take their providers out of the picture when looking for information about medications that are directly applicable to them,” she said. “But it may not be applicable to the patients themselves because of their personal case, and every patient is different. So the authority here should not be removed from the picture: the healthcare professional, the prescriber, the patient’s physicians.”