The Professional Spine: Creation of a Four-year Engineering Design and Practice Sequence
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
This paper discusses the development of a four-year Engineering Design and Practice Sequence (EDPS) of project-based courses at Queen’s University. The four-year sequence is a core requirement for all engineering students, and will develop competence in design process methods and tools, problem analysis, creativity, economics and entrepreneurship, engineering communications, professionalism, and ethics. The EDPS was designed to meet requirements of the Canadian Engineering Accreditation Board graduate attributes , which addresses requirements of the Washington Accord. They also target applicable elements of the CDIO syllabus. The EDPS is being delivered to first year engineering students for the first time in the 2010-2011 academic year and will continue rolling out over the next three years. The paper discusses the process involved in creating the sequence, the course objectives and delivery for each year of the program, and proposed assessment and evaluation methods. The sequence will also be compared to previously published engineering design and practice sequences. The outcomes of the first year, including student feedback and attribute assessment, will also be discussed. Upper year students who will not experience the engineering design and practice sequence are being assessed on their understanding of design methods to provide baseline data for comparison with students who progress through the sequence in future years.This paper was also published in the ASEE 2011 Annual General Conference with joint permission of ASEE and CEEA.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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