MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1798365423 · doi:10.24908/pceea.v0i0.5903

Industrial Projects in a Project-Based Learning Environment

2015· article· en· W1798365423 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Calin Stoicoiu, Karen Cain

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA) · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEngineering Education and Curriculum Development
Canadian institutionsConestoga College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTimelineScope (computer science)PaceProject-based learningWork (physics)Project managementGraduation (instrument)CurriculumEngineering managementProject charterKnowledge managementProject management triangleEngineeringBusinessProcess managementComputer scienceSystems engineeringPsychologyPedagogy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Industry is progressively moving at a faster pace with complicated problems and projects that require increasingly rapid turn-around. Newly graduated engineers are often required to work on projects having, in many cases, poorly defined scope, constraints and outcomes. In addition to their technical knowledge, employers expect enhanced communication, entrepreneurial and managerial skills.Project-based learning (PBL) enhances engineering education, providing students with a setting that closely simulates their post-graduation work environment. The addition of projects into the engineering curriculum creates avenues towards improving communication, individual growth, life-long learning and team-work; skills that industry desires. The key has always been to present students with problems and projects that are as open-ended and realistic as possible, creating situations that closely resemble those encountered in industrial settings, such as: project requirements that are not well structured, changes to project scope and timelines and the need to address a customer’s changing needs or expectations.The addition of a real project in cooperation with an industry partner may be the ultimate method of achieving these goals. The development and management of the project is complex involving students, faculty, and the industry partner, but generates tangible advantages for all three parties. This paper will discuss the many benefits and challenges of incorporating a real industrial project into the educational environment.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.099

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0050.003
Scholarly communication0.0080.004
Open science0.0040.011
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0300.013

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.193
Teacher spread0.176 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations3
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA)Same topicEngineering Education and Curriculum DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207