Engineering Design Survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Design is one of twelve graduate attributesthat needs to be assessed as part of the accreditationprocess for engineering programs in Canada, as requiredby the Canadian Engineering Accreditation Board(CEAB). However, assessment of design competence is acomplex task due to the fact design process is non-linearand depends on many factors including communicationskills, teamwork skills, individual knowledge and skills,and project complexity. This study aims to captureundergraduate students’ design and teamwork skills andthe challenges they face in their design projects. To thisend, a low-cost assessment tool which can beimplemented and analyzed relatively fast is presented.The tool is a new survey which assesses students’ selfreportedintentions and skills for four key dimensions ofteam-based engineering design: (a) design process, (b)design communication, (c) teamwork, (d) regulation ofteamwork. The survey was administered to the first yearstudents enrolled in “Design and Communication I” aftercompletion of a final design project. In this paper, thesurvey development and key findings from the collecteddata are discussed in detail.
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 | 0.008 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.140 | 0.060 |
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".