TEACHING TEACHERS: COULD I DESIGN AND BUILD A TINY SMART ROBOT?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper describes a sample project that involves the construction and testing of a small robot. The projecthas been developed in the form of a workshop for both students and the teachers. The objectives of the workshop were to (i) attract new students to the electrical and computer engineering programs by exciting their imagination and fostering their innate curiosity, (ii) provide students with the background to build and test mechatronics devices, (iii) give students practical experience with sensors, electronics, soldering, mechanical construction, and test equipment, (iv) teach students how to work in small groups, and disseminate the experience to other students, as well as their teachers and parents. This workshop has been delivered directly to high-school students at both the Science and Engineering Symposium for the Peguis First Nation in Manitoba, and to grade 9 to 11 students at the Space Adventure Camp at the University of Manitoba. The events were developed to encourage senior highschool students to consider science, engineering and technology at the university and college levels.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".