MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1894501234 · doi:10.24908/pceea.v0i0.3709

IN-CLASS TEAM DESIGN COMPETITIONS - THE MECHATRONICS EXAMPLE

2011· article· en· W1894501234 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA) · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMechatronics Education and Applications
Canadian institutionsQueen's UniversityUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMechatronicsClass (philosophy)EngineeringTest (biology)Engineering managementComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceElectrical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

External team design competitions continue to be popular with students, from Formula SAE racing to Sunrayce Solar vehicles. It is generally accepted that the hands-on design, build and test activities inherent with these projects provide students with invaluable experience for their future careers as engineers. In this paper, examples of two in-class team design competitions are given. Both examples are mobile robot based competitions held in courses in mechatronics engineering as offered by instructors in mechanical engineering. It is claimed that the in-class competitions have similar benefits to external competitions, but have a greater impact as they involve more students.

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.

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 score0.792
Threshold uncertainty score0.731

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.190
Teacher spread0.173 · 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