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 OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Paul Kurowski

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.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.077
Threshold uncertainty score0.259

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0770.064

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

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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations5
Published2011
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA)Same topicStructural Engineering and Materials AnalysisFrench-language works237,207