MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1946318162 · doi:10.24908/pceea.v0i0.5937

HUMANITARIAN ENGINEERING EDUCATION: EXAMPLES

2015· article· en· W1946318162 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Witold Kinsner

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA) · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicDiverse Research and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
FundersUniversity of Manitoba
KeywordsSanitationNatural disasterInjusticeProductivityDeveloping countryPolitical scienceEconomic growthEngineeringGeographyEnvironmental engineeringEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recent developments in mathematics, science,engineering and technology over the last several decadeshave made it possible to transform technology frommachine-oriented (designed to increase productivity andquantification) to more human-centric (to simplifyinteraction with technology and improve the well-being ofindividuals). Technology is being positioned to be movedfrom a privilege to a social benefit. Such humanitariantechnology (HT) can help at several levels, including: (i)natural disasters (such as fires, storms, tornadoes,tsunamis, earthquakes), (ii) humanitarian disasters(genocides, wars, non-democratic elections, injustice), (iii)developing countries (water, food, shelter, energy,sanitation, health, (iv) developed countries (the poor,seniors, people with physical or mental disabilities, orunder-represented). Since, in all those levels, informationgathering and distribution is considered as important aswater, food and medicines in disasters, it must beconsidered as an ecosystem.The development of a good HT has many scientific,engineering, technological and social challenges. One ofthe important challenges is education. How do we teachthe new generation of humanitarian design engineers? Thispaper describes one approach used in Manitoba.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.114

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0340.009

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.207 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations10
Published2015
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA)Same topicDiverse Research and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207