MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2137947009 · doi:10.24908/pceea.v0i0.3777

THE IMPACT OF A UBIQUITOUS MOBILE COMPUTING ENVIRONMENT ON DESIGN ENGINEERING EDUCATION

2011· article· en· W2137947009 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Scott Nokleby, Remon Pop-Iliev

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA) · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicExperimental Learning in Engineering
Canadian institutionsOntario Tech University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLaptopSuiteCurriculumComputer scienceComponent (thermodynamics)Engineering educationKey (lock)Mobile deviceEngineering managementUbiquitous computingSoftware engineeringMultimediaEngineeringHuman–computer interactionWorld Wide WebOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Providing students with a ubiquitous mobile computing environment is a key component of UOIT’s teaching and learning strategy which offered a unique opportunity to build its programs from the ground-up with a laptop program at its centre. While ensuring that its use was considered in every aspect of curriculum development, five undergraduate engineering programs curricula have been developed at the University’s Faculty of Engineering and Applied Science (FEAS) with a laptop-supported mobile computing environment at its heart. The laptops are equipped with a suite of program specific software. The focus of this paper is on the pedagogical benefits that have been achieved in design engineering education at FEAS as a result of the students’ ubiquitous access to the latest CAD/CAM/CAE and productivity tools. The laptop program enables improved delivery of design engineering training along with the opportunity of implementing novel teaching strategies.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.999
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.202
Teacher spread0.194 · 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 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

Citations2
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA)Same topicExperimental Learning in EngineeringFrench-language works237,207