MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2097570336 · doi:10.24908/pceea.v0i0.4639

A NOVEL FACULTY-WIDE APPROACH TO TEACHING SECOND YEAR ENGINEERING DESIGN AND PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE

2012· article· en· W2097570336 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
David S. Strong, Brian Frank

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA) · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEngineering Education and Curriculum Development
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaQueen's University
KeywordsCurriculumMedical educationCourse (navigation)Process (computing)EngineeringEngineering managementMathematics educationScience and engineeringEngineering ethicsComputer sciencePsychologyMedicinePedagogy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the 2011-2012 academic year Queen’s University introduced a new second year faculty-wide design course as part of its initiative to create a four year Engineering Design and Practice Sequence (EDPS) in all engineering programs. This paper discusses the structure, delivery, results, and feedback on the first offering of the second year EPDS course. Based on learning objectives developed by a faculty-wide curriculum committee, the one-term course was designed with a novel hybrid delivery process. The structure incorporates common instructional material and integrated projects across all departments during the first half of the course, and continues with discipline-oriented projects to enhance and reinforce the overall learning objectives through the latter half. Over 600 second year students from the Faculty of Engineering and Applied Science were enrolled, and more than a dozen instructors and 34 teaching assistants were involved in the course delivery over both academic terms. Details of the course structure, examples of instructional material and projects, and feedback from all representative parties are discussed.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.265
Threshold uncertainty score0.962

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.212 · 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

Citations3
Published2012
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA)Same topicEngineering Education and Curriculum DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207