Industrial sponsored design projects addressed by student design teams
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The development and implementation of a 4 quarter course sequence starting in the Spring of the Junior year is the focus of this paper. The first course focuses on having teams of students take an industrial based project from inception through a conceptual design process culminating in a final design specification. The senior year sequence is structured to have 3-5 member teams function as a type of "engineering consultant firm" to address industrial sponsored projects. The teams initially work with the sponsor to develop a "product design specification" (PDS) as the foundation of the project. The teams then develop the conceptual design of the project during the Fall quarter in order to get sponsor approval to move toward final implementation or prototype development during the Winter and early Spring teams. The course culminates with a day long symposium where each team makes formal presentations of their project and designs to the campus community, the sponsor representatives, and invited guests from the local community and potential industrial sponsors. The paper presents the specifics of the Junior and Senior level courses, brief overviews of the related sophomore and junior prerequisite courses, the method of obtaining the industrial sponsors, team formation process, sample projects and assessment results from the first two offerings of the sequence.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it