MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1953504569 · doi:10.24908/pceea.v0i0.5767

TOWARDS IMPROVED LEARNING OF FLUID MECHANICS VIA INTEGRATION OF A COMMERCIAL SOFTWARE PACKAGE INTO AN UNDERGRADUATE COURSE

2015· article· en· W1953504569 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
S. Campbell, David R. Latulippe

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA) · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicExperimental Learning in Engineering
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersMcMaster University
KeywordsSoftwarePipingComputer scienceVariety (cybernetics)Software engineeringSet (abstract data type)EngineeringMechanical engineeringArtificial intelligenceOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The integration of software packages intochemical engineering courses is widely regarded tobenefit students in two ways. First, the active learningenvironment encourages a deep understanding of thecourse material. Second, it gives students practicalexperience with ‘state of the art’ tools that are used inindustry. However, surveys of chemical engineeringprograms have shown that the use of software packagesinto traditional fluid mechanics courses is quite low (lessthan 10%). Recently, the software package PIPE-FLO(from Engineered Software Inc.) was integrated into thesecond-year fluid mechanics course (ChE 2O04) atMcMaster. The software performs a full hydraulicnetwork analysis for a variety of piping configurationswith numerous piping components such as pumps,compressors, and control valves. The implementation ofPIPE-FLO as a simulation tool is in accordance with therecent initiative by the Canadian EngineeringAccreditation Board (CEAB) to determine directions forprogram improvement. A set of ten self-guided tutorialswere prepared to teach the students how to use the fullprofessional version of PIPE-FLO that was available inthe campus computer labs. Each tutorial was developedto enhance the understanding of the theory learned inclass and included references to the appropriateequations from the course textbook. Feedback from thestudents was overwhelmingly positive and encouragedgreater integration of the software into future offerings ofthe course.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.058

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0030.005
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0170.009

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.217 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations4
Published2015
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA)Same topicExperimental Learning in EngineeringFrench-language works237,207