Recent Enhancements to the Biosystems Engineering Design Trilogy at the University of Manitoba
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In previous years, several improvements to the teaching of engineering design were made by staff in the Department of Biosystems Engineering at The University of Manitoba. The first innovation occurred when a trilogy of courses spanning the final three years of the program was introduced as a replacement for a single capstone course in the final year of the program. In its original conception, engineering students were to get three opportunities to be involved in design problems originating from industry, with greater expectations with each subsequent experience. A second innovation occurred when technical communication was formally integrated within the trilogy of design courses. This innovation has helped engineering students realize the value of professional communication skills in collaborating with each other and in preparing reports and presentations for an industry client. A third innovation occurred three years ago when the decision was made to allow students to participate in the prototyping of their designs. The so-called “Design Trilogy” now consists of a single course (Design Trilogy I) taken during the second year of the engineering program (which builds upon the first-year design experience with the requirement of a conceptual solution in response to a design problem provided by industry) and two courses taken during the final year of the program. Students are required to have a design completed on paper by the completion of Design Trilogy II and fabrication of the prototype occurs during Design Trilogy III. The student experience in the Design Trilogy, with particular emphasis on curriculum innovations in Design Trilogy III, will be discussed.
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 | 0.016 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.067 | 0.021 |
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".