Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract NOTE: The first page of text has been automatically extracted and included below in lieu of an abstract Practitioner Driven Senior Design Capstone Course INTRODUCTION The capstone design experience in an undergraduate engineering degree program is a course in which students draw upon various aspects of their undergraduate coursework to develop a comprehensive, engineered solution to an open-ended problem. Since Autumn Quarter 2000, the capstone senior design course in the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering (CEE) at University of Cincinnati (UC) is executed as a three-quarter Integrated Design Sequence (IDS) course, offered in conjunction with a practicing professional engineer (client), and other practitioners and faculty members acting as mentors. IDS is an innovative and ambitious three-course series focusing on a single design theme with multiple components that encourage interaction among traditional CEE specialty areas (e.g., construction, environmental, geotechnical, structural, transportation, water resources). Students work in design teams, like a design firm, and submit feasibility, design and construction plans, and associated cost estimates for a real-world project. Students must interface with a “client” and a group (consisting of 6 to 8 members) of “industry advisors” or practitioners (who collectively act as owners) to gather data and information; the owners are also in the audience for final presentations. A specially Design Center houses all the teams. The whole experience stresses on communication and collaborative skills. This course is designed as a gateway to the profession. The deliverable each quarter is a set of plans with a written report. For the autumn quarter, the drawings show a conceptual plan. The product of the Winter Quarter is a set of design plans with details, specifications, quantities and a construction cost estimate, and the product of the Spring Quarter is a set of design plans simplified for better understanding by a non-technical audience. This paper describes four aspects to the IDS course: 1) description of the course goals and implementation; 2) a brief description of the projects executed; 3) grading process used; and 4) assessment of the project outcomes, objectives, and results. Hopefully, this documentation will help others in planning similar experiences for senior engineering students. DESCRIPTION OF THREE-PHASE SENIOR DESIGN PROJECT Course Goals. All CEE undergraduate students at UC are required to take Integrated Design I, II, and III. These courses were installed in the curriculum to provide a final, integrated engineering experience for the students and to meet the General Education requirements of the University. The courses are spread over three quarters to allow the students sufficient time to complete a significant project. The goals of the Integrated Design courses are: 1. To show students how engineering concepts, taught as individual subjects in disparate courses, are brought together in a project. 2. To demonstrate the interaction needed between CE sub-disciplines in a project. 3. To provide training and experience on teamwork and team building, essential for modern engineering practice. 4. To improve oral, written, and visual communication skills. 5. To force students to consider non-technical aspects of a project, such as:
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.262 | 0.147 |
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".