MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2128649748 · doi:10.24908/pceea.v0i0.5729

EPICS: Meeting Outcomes with Multidisciplinary Student Teams

2015· article· en· W2128649748 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
William Oakes, Maeve Drummond, Carla Zoltowski

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA) · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicService-Learning and Community Engagement
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDocumentationService-learningMultidisciplinary approachEngineering managementContext (archaeology)Service (business)EngineeringMedical educationEngineering ethicsComputer scienceBusinessPsychologyPolitical sciencePedagogyMedicineMarketing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Engineering Projects in Community Service— EPICS — is a service-learning program that wasdeveloped nearly twenty years ago at Purdue University.Under this program, undergraduate students inmultidisciplinary teams earn academic credit for longtermprojects that solve technology-based problems forlocal or global community service organizations. TheEPICS model has been implemented at 23 universities inNorth American and on other continents. With itsemphasis on the start-to-finish design of significantprojects that will be deployed by the communitycustomers, EPICS addresses many of the programoutcomes mandated by ABET and the CEAB and, morebroadly, to meet the Washington Accord graduateattributes. This paper describes the curricular andassessment procedures and documentation that have beendeveloped to enhance and evaluate the students' abilitiesto meet outcomes including functioning onmultidisciplinary teams; communicate effectively; andunderstand the impact of engineering solutions in aglobal and societal context.

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)0.002
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.222
Threshold uncertainty score0.908

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.260 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA)Same topicService-Learning and Community EngagementFrench-language works237,207