MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2112894805 · doi:10.1109/pes.2004.1373040

An innovative industry-university partnership to enhance university training and industry recruiting in power engineering

2004· article· en· W2112894805 on OpenAlexaff
G. Joós, R.J. Marceau, G. Scott, David Peloquin

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Power Engineering Society General Meeting, 2004. · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicExperimental Learning in Engineering
Canadian institutionsHydro-QuébecUniversité de SherbrookeMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInternshipGeneral partnershipEngineering managementIncentiveEngineering educationTraining (meteorology)Power (physics)EngineeringBusinessFinanceEconomicsEconomic growth

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary form only given. Many universities have in the late 1990s reduced the number of courses in Power Engineering preferring to devote their resources to other areas such as information technologies. This comes at a time when it is predicted that a significant number of engineers are retiring in the next decade, in some utilities, more than a third. A leading utility in generation, transmission and distribution, has therefore taken the initiative, with the help of six local universities and the support of local industry, to create and finance an Institute of Electrical Power Engineering to train and recruit students, and allow universities to offer comprehensive programs in this discipline. Innovative aspects include the development of a specialized program of courses and laboratories common to participating universities, the active involvement of industry in program development and instruction and the introduction of incentives such as scholarships, industrial projects and internships.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.197
Threshold uncertainty score0.658

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1970.047

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.230 · 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
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

Citations5
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Power Engineering Society General Meeting, 2004.Same topicExperimental Learning in EngineeringFrench-language works237,207