MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2111010684 · doi:10.24908/pceea.v0i0.3880

A NOVEL DESIGN COMPETITION FOR THIRD-YEAR CIVIL ENGINEERING STUDENTS

2011· article· en· W2111010684 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Janaka Y. Ruwanpura

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA) · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEngineering Education and Curriculum Development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of Calgary
KeywordsDeliverableCompetition (biology)EngineeringEngineering managementCurriculumEngineering educationCivil engineeringEngineering ethicsPedagogySociologySystems engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

At many Canadian universities, there are few courses for design education in the civil engineering curriculum except in fourth year. This paper explains an innovative approach introduced by the author to promote design education using a design competition at the University of Calgary. Through this design competition, third-year students learn design concepts and apply them using a real project, integrate several civil engineering deliverables in one project without doing them in a separate course, and gain experience that prepares them for their final-year design course. The eight courses included in the competition comprise all civil engineering aspects, including structural, geotechnical, transportation, environmental, construction, material, and project management. This inaugural year’s design competition is based on the new Alberta Children’s Hospital Project. The paper discusses the competition’s purpose, structure, student participation, deliverables, and successful outcome.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.044
Threshold uncertainty score0.087

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0110.002
Scholarly communication0.0070.002
Open science0.0030.008
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0210.005

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 head0.198
Teacher spread0.185 · 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 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 routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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