MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2061003446 · doi:10.1109/fie.2010.5673389

Work in progress — Design in first year engineering

2010· article· en· W2061003446 on OpenAlexaffabout
Tiffany Veltman, William Rosehart

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicDesign Education and Practice
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContext (archaeology)Strengths and weaknessesEngineering educationWork (physics)Course (navigation)Computer scienceDesign educationEngineering managementEngineering design processEngineeringEngineering ethicsPsychologyMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper examines first year (freshman) design experiences. The work described in this paper evaluates various approaches to design education taken by engineering institutions across North America. Additionally, this paper identifies the strengths and weaknesses of the approaches to design education, particularly in the context of the first year design experience within the Schulich School of Engineering (University of Calgary), by comparing the 2002 two-course design experience and the 2010 revised single-course experience. Finally, this paper highlights the successes of the single-course experience, and describes future steps that will be taken in the course design.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.759
Threshold uncertainty score0.630

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.227 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations4
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicDesign Education and PracticeFrench-language works237,207