MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2120446186 · doi:10.24908/pceea.v0i0.3919

BEYOND ENGINEERING DESIGN: WHAT ARE THE NATURAL BOUNDARIES OF DESIGN EDUCATION AND RESEARCH FOR CANADIAN UNIVERSITIES?

2011· article· en· W2120446186 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Robert Woodbury, Patrick Côté, Peter Harrop, Hugues Rivard, Filippo A. Salustri, Thomas M. Seebohm

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA) · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicDesign Education and Practice
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalÉcole de Technologie SupérieureSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScope (computer science)Engineering ethicsPrivilege (computing)DisciplineWork (physics)GlobalizationDesign educationNatural (archaeology)SociologyStrategic designDesign elements and principlesPolitical scienceEngineeringEngineering managementComputer scienceBusinessSystems engineeringSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Design is a key present and future contributor to the wealth of nations. It is a discipline in the sense that it is a coherent body of thought and practice, but in academia is almost invariably distributed across disciplines concerned with particular kinds of design. Successful design work involves many such disciplines. Contemporary design practice demonstrates work organizations in which no one discipline has privilege of priority. Several trends, including globalization, environmental limits, multiple clients and criteria, limited disciplinary perspectives, design tools, collaboration, disruptive technologies and changing patterns of design education point to an increasing scope both for the act of design in society and of the disciplines that must effectively interact on design problems. An implication is a need for a corresponding increase in communication and collaboration across all relevant design disciplines.

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)0.001
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 score0.270
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.220 · 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

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA)Same topicDesign Education and PracticeFrench-language works237,207