ENGG 113 COMMUNICATIONS AND DESIGN: A FIRST YEAR ENGINEERING COURSE AT THE UNIVERSITY OF REGINA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Circa 1990 the Engineering curriculum at the University of Regina was completely overhauled. Previous to this, there were small courses in communication and design. The short courses were combined into a single standard length course of 3 credit hours, ENGG 113, Communications and Design. The underlying principle was that communication was indeed a design process. An essay must be designed, a presentation must be designed and even a sentence must be created using the fundamentals of the design process. The course incorporates unorthodox practices but it covers a variety of topics that support the design process. For example, time management is not only covered, it is practiced in class by having a student moderate each class. The class is broken into four 17 minute periods, each starting with students doing random self introductions, and ending with student summaries. Student design groups do a presentation during one of these modules. The entire class is under the control of the moderator. The lab is broken into three sections, a writing activity, a computer activity and a design activity. A design is done, and is presented at the end of the course as a WEB document. This paper describes the topics, the objectives and the methodology of the course and gives an analysis as to what works and what remains lacking.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.066 | 0.041 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".