MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2068438083 · doi:10.1109/wsc.2001.977488

Various ways academics teach simulation: are they all appropriate?

2001· article· en· W2068438083 on OpenAlexaff
Tayfur Altıok, W. David Kelton, Pierre L’Ecuyer, Barry L. Nelson, B.W. Schmeiser, Thomas J. Schriber, Lee W. Schruben, James R. Wilson

Bibliographic record

VenueProceeding of the 2001 Winter Simulation Conference (Cat. No.01CH37304) · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRadio Frequency Integrated Circuit Design
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCover (algebra)Computer scienceMathematics educationSequence (biology)Engineering ethicsEngineeringPsychologyMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This panel discusses goals and educational strategies for teaching simulation in academia. Clearly, there is considerable material to cover in a single course or a sequence thereof in, say, an undergraduate program, The issue is how to motivate and empower students to analyze complex problems correctly and to prevent the pitfall of misusing the concept.

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)0.036
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.078
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.036
Threshold uncertainty score0.193

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0360.078
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0040.007
Scholarly communication0.0160.013
Open science0.0030.008
Research integrity0.0060.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.008

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 head0.083
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.193 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations22
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceeding of the 2001 Winter Simulation Conference (Cat. No.01CH37304)Same topicRadio Frequency Integrated Circuit DesignFrench-language works237,207