Introducing R&M and testability into the undergraduate system-design course
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In October 1989 Florida Institute of Technology introduced reliability, maintainability, and testability (R/M/T) material into its three-quarter Electrical and Computer Engineering System Design course sequence. This course originally had senior-year students conceive, design, fabricate, test, and demonstrate a working prototype of their proposed projects. This R/M/T material provided an emphasis by introducing the concepts of concurrent engineering. This is accomplished by implementing a more formal system design process which includes team building, communication skills (written and oral), task scheduling and monitoring, and project cost estimating. The first quarter is used to organize the student project teams, and instruct the students on the system design process, and fundamentals of designing for R/M/T. The first quarter concludes with the students submitting their team project proposal. During the second quarter, the teams complete their preliminary and detailed design. This activity is augmented with seminars (lectures) on producibility, quality assurance, fabrication techniques, and testability design concepts. The third quarter is used for the fabrication, test, and demonstration of the team's prototype. In addition, seminars on statistical process control are provided.>
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.037 | 0.015 |
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".