MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W178342083 · doi:10.24908/pceea.v0i0.3839

TEACHING FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS FOR DESIGN ENGINEERS

2011· article· en· W178342083 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA) · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Engineering and Materials Analysis
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFinite element methodCurriculumEngineeringField (mathematics)Product designProduct (mathematics)Engineering managementNew product developmentManufacturing engineeringMechanical engineeringSoftware engineeringSystems engineeringComputer scienceEngineering drawingStructural engineeringManagement

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Finite Element Analysis (FEA) is becoming increasingly popular among design engineers using it as one of many product design tools. Safe and cost efficient use of FEA as a product design tool requires training, different from that presently found in undergraduate curriculum of mechanical engineering students. The specific requirements of design engineers for training in the field of FEA have been addressed by the author in a number of professional development courses in FEA, catering specifically to the needs of design engineers. This paper discuses tools and methods used in the development and delivery of these courses and their applicability to the undergraduate courses taught in Canadian Engineering schools.

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.259
Threshold uncertainty score0.801

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.192
Teacher spread0.180 · 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