Product-Based Learning in an Overseas Study Program: The ME110K Course*
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Experience in a foreign country has long been considered a vital part of a well-rounded education.Engineering students, though, seem to have been considered an exception; many students andeducators see such experience as being unnecessary, or an unaffordable luxury, given the largenumber of subjects that are required in the undergraduate curriculum. Stanford University hasmade a commitment to making overseas study available to as many students as possible, includingthose who don't traditionally participate. A prime example of that effort is found in the Springquarter Stanford Center for Technology and Innovation, a program held at its Kyoto, Japanoverseas campus, targeted specifically at students in engineering and science programs. Requiredcourses are made available through videotape, live discussion, and such, with the support of on- andoff-site professors and teachers' assistants. Expanding on this, we have begun an overseas designproject course, aimed ultimately at fulfilling the ABET capstone design course requirements forupper-level engineering students. In this paper we report briefly on the first iteration of the course,taught in the Spring quarter of 1998 in collaboration with Prof. Itsuo Ohnaka of Osaka University.Students in the course teamed up to work on design projects sponsored by four Japanese companies.Because of this unique setting, it was possible to educate the students about the influence of cultureon design, creativity, perception of needs; about conventional and unusual approaches to teamwork;and about often culture-dependant assumptions about what criteria an acceptable solution mustpossess. Studying design in such a foreign context, we have found, can be an extraordinary, eye-opening experience, enabling students to better see the context of their future work, especially asmore and more will take place in a global arena. The course was taught again in the Spring of 2000,and included students from Osaka University in the project teams. As of this writing, preparationsare underway to carry it out again in the Spring of 2001 in Kyoto and Berlin overseas campuses,with further enhancements.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 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".