MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1893849089 · doi:10.24908/pceea.v0i0.5838

CAPSTONE PROJECTS WITH LIMITED BUDGET AS AN EFFECTIVE METHOD FOR EXPERIENTIAL LEARNING

2015· article· en· W1893849089 on OpenAlexaffvenue
L. Balan, Timber Yuen, Dan Centea, Ishwar Singh

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA) · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBiomedical and Engineering Education
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExperiential learningCapstoneCapstone coursePerspective (graphical)Engineering managementWork (physics)Computer scienceKnowledge managementEngineeringArtificial intelligenceMathematics educationPsychologyMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper describes a method that is used inSchool of Engineering Technology Department atMcMaster University to promote experiential learning atundergraduate level through capstone projects.The goal of this paper is to demonstrate that capstoneprojects with limited budget can be effectively used toimplement experiential learning methodology toengineering students.According to this methodology, students work ingroups of three over two academic terms, to completecapstone projects that require designing, building,testing, and prototyping a final product. The methodologyis addressed from the perspective of experiential learningtheory, and several project cost-reducing strategies arepresented.Selected results from student capstone projects atMcMaster University are presented and discussed.Results indicate that capstone projects can besuccessfully implemented into experiential learningmethodology when adequate strategies for reducing theproject costs are considered.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.178
Threshold uncertainty score0.721

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.230
Teacher spread0.224 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations6
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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