MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1842614498 · doi:10.24908/pceea.v0i0.4002

IS IT TIME TO SEPARATE APPLIED SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING?

2011· article· en· W1842614498 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Filippo A. Salustri

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA) · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBiomedical and Engineering Education
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScience and engineeringTerm (time)Computer scienceEngineering ethicsEngineering researchEngineering managementManagement scienceData scienceEngineeringTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, the author proposes that the long-term health of engineering education in Canada would be served well by separating applied science and engineering. The rationale for such a separation is presented, along with some suggestions for how the two streams, each leading to a doctorate, could be implemented.

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 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)0.000
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.402
Threshold uncertainty score0.767

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.183
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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations1
Published2011
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA)Same topicBiomedical and Engineering EducationFrench-language works237,207