MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2071709409 · doi:10.1017/cbo9781139057516.017

O

2011· book-chapter· en· W2071709409 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Henry Petroski

Bibliographic record

VenueCambridge University Press eBooks · 2011
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicDesign Education and Practice
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCeremonyEngineeringRing (chemistry)Order (exchange)State (computer science)Engineering physicsHistoryArchaeologyComputer scienceChemistryBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Order of the Engineer . As early as the 1950s, some Ohio engineers began to look into extending the Canadian Iron Ring Ceremony into the United States; however, it was not until 1970 that the first American ring ceremony was held at Cleveland State University. Local chapters of the Order of the Engineer, known as Links, began to form, first around Ohio, but then increasingly throughout the country. The movement has continued to spread, but the practice of American engineers wearing a stainless steel pinkie ring has not grown to nearly the extent that Canadian engineers wear their iron (now also mostly stainless steel) rings. See Homer T. Borton, “The Order of the Engineer,” The Bent of Tau Beta Pi , Spring 1978, pp. 35–37; “The Iron Ring,” American Scientist , May–June 1995, pp. 229–232; To Forgive Design: Understanding Failure (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, forthcoming), chapter 8. The pledge taken by engineers at the time of their induction into the American Order of the Engineer is known as the “Obligation of an Engineer.” It was modeled after that of the Canadian iron ring tradition and appeared on early membership certificates as follows: Obligation of an Engineer I am an Engineer. In my profession I take deep pride. To it I owe solemn obligations. Since the Stone Age, human progress has been spurred by the engineering genius. Engineers have made usable Nature's vast resources of material and energy for Mankind's benefit. Engineers have vitalized and turned to practical use the principles of science and the means of technology. […]

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.863
Threshold uncertainty score0.000

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1370.075

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.192
Teacher spread0.157 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCambridge University Press eBooksSame topicDesign Education and PracticeFrench-language works237,207