MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

An Interactive Database Supporting Virtual Fieldwork in an Environmental Engineering Design Project

2002· article· en· W2038032702 on OpenAlexaff
Thomas C. Harmon, Glenn A. Burks, Jonathan J. Giron, Wilson Wong, Gregory K. W. K. Chung, Eva L. Baker

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Engineering Education · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEngineering Education and Curriculum Development
Canadian institutionsNexen (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUsabilityRequisitionSoftwareConstruct (python library)Work (physics)CurriculumComputer scienceEngineering managementDrillEngineeringSystems engineeringSoftware engineeringHuman–computer interaction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This work presents an interactive simulation software package for delivering an environmental engineering design project. The primary goal of the effort is to supplement theory‐based course content with a complex and relevant design project, and to do so without increasing student course loads or placing excessive time demands on instructors. An additional goal for research‐based instructors is to provide an efficient mechanism for infusing current research findings and experimental techniques into the curriculum. The software that administers the design project is called Interactive Site Investigation Software (ISIS). This paper summarizes the rationale for the development of ISIS, outlines the instructor‐generated input required by ISIS, and details current ISIS features. These features allow students to drill boreholes, collect core samples, construct wells, collect groundwater samples, submit samples for laboratory analysis, and execute hydraulic and transport experiments at a virtual hazardous waste site. Initial feedback on the usability and usefulness of ISIS was generally positive, and the automated data requisition and dispensation substantially reduced the project's administrative demands on the instructor. Common student complaints pertained to controlled access to the software in the face of deadline pressure, uncertain expectations regarding their work product, and the need for real‐time advice.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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 score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.095

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0280.006

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.241 · 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

Citations27
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Engineering EducationSame topicEngineering Education and Curriculum DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207