MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1947697171 · doi:10.24908/pceea.v0i0.3616

Curriculum Design & Enhancement

2011· article· en· W1947697171 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Chitralekha Potnis, Ajit Potnis

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA) · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEngineering Education and Curriculum Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCurriculumRelevance (law)Engineering ethicsProcess (computing)Curriculum theoryProblem solverEmergent curriculumCurriculum mappingField (mathematics)Curriculum developmentEngineering managementMathematics educationComputer scienceEngineeringPsychologyPedagogyPolitical scienceSoftware engineeringMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Educational systems are viewed as a coherent system comprising elements such as students, faculty, and methods of imparting education. An engineer is a problem solver. Careful planning to inculcate particular structure of thinking, mental organization and intellectual ability in a prospective engineer is essential. Engineering is a highly creative profession. Engineers should be able to deal with economic, human, social factors in their profession. The “crux” of all educational processes is the ‘CURRICULUM”. Curriculum is planned to fulfill a particular objective within specified time and should change the attitude, knowledge and skill levels of the student. Curriculum design should be considered very carefully. It is essential to know that course duration, course pattern (regular, part-time), entrance qualification, teaching and evaluating system impose limitations on the design. This dynamic process will require continuous evaluation and modification to meet the changing needs of society. Curriculum’s success depends on how well it is implemented. It is imperative that the institute has the necessary facilities for implementing the curriculum and the faculty effectively teaches the course. A continuous evaluation by peers and experts is necessary on a continuous basis to maintain the relevance of the curriculum to the needs in the field.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.089

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0270.008

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.186
Teacher spread0.174 · 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
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
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA)Same topicEngineering Education and Curriculum DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207