MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1894002209 · doi:10.24908/pceea.v0i0.4821

LESSONS FROM THE INAUGURAL SATELLITE DESIGN CHALLENGE

2013· article· en· W1894002209 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Dario Schor, Kane Anderson, Ahmad Byagowi, Brady Russell, Scott McKay, Veronica Marriott, Reza Fazel-Darbandi, Matthew Woelk, Anthony Schoenfeld, Craig Nemeth, Pawel Glowacki, Greg Linton, Witold Kinsner, Matt Britton, Malcolm Symonds

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA) · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSatellite Communication Systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
FundersWinnipeg FoundationCanadian Space AgencyShell CanadaUniversity of MemphisUniversity of Manitoba
KeywordsEngineering managementAgency (philosophy)Systems engineeringCompetition (biology)SatelliteComputer scienceExperiential learningProcess managementEngineeringPolitical scienceAerospace engineeringSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The inaugural Canadian Satellite Design Challenge provided many experiential learning opportunities for students through the design, implementation, and testing of the T-Sat1 nanosatellite.The University of Manitoba team elected to build all components from the ground up in order to develop many technical and non-technical skills that complement the classroom experience.The first phases of the project focused on the definition of requirements, specifications, and interfaces. Then, the team began prototyping, implementing, and integrating subsystems. Finally, the spacecraft was tested at the Canadian Space Agency laboratories in Ottawa and obtained second place overall in the competition.This paper describes some of the major lessons from the implementation, integration, and testing phases of the project. In addition, some insight is provided as to the ongoing changes for the second iteration of the competition that aim at improving the experience and performance of the satellite.

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)0.001
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 score0.388
Threshold uncertainty score0.992

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.191 · 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

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA)Same topicSatellite Communication SystemsFrench-language works237,207