MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1756646905 · doi:10.24908/pceea.v0i0.3662

REINFORCING LEARNING IN ENGINEERING EDUCATION BY ALTERNATING BETWEEN THEORY, SIMULATION AND EXPERIMENTS

2011· article· en· W1756646905 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Paul Kurowski, Ralph O. Buchal

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA) · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSoil, Finite Element Methods
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScope (computer science)Bridge (graph theory)Computer scienceEngineering educationSoftwareSoftware engineeringSimulation softwareSimulationEngineering managementEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Traditional engineering education has relied on teaching theoretical fundamentals, reinforced in some courses by laboratory experiments. However, for practical reasons experiments are limited in the scope, and many students fail to make the necessary connections between the theory and its applications. To bridge the gap between theory and applications we use the tools of Computer Aided Engineering (CAE). The hands-on use of simulation tools such as CAD, FEA or Motion Analysis helps students visualize and understand the application of theory to real engineering problems and allows students to model and simulate much more complex problems than are amenable to hand calculations. At the same time, the use of commercial simulation software provides students with skills that are in high demand in the market place.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.028
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.070

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.028
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.007
Scholarly communication0.0060.007
Open science0.0030.009
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.003

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.235 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations1
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA)Same topicSoil, Finite Element MethodsFrench-language works237,207