MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2144206676 · doi:10.24908/pceea.v0i0.3876

CANADA'S NEWEST ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING CURRICULUM: DRIVING FACTORS AND CRITICAL REQUIREMENTS

2011· article· en· W2144206676 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Ali Grami, Marc A. Rosen

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA) · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicExperimental Learning in Engineering
Canadian institutionsOntario Tech University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAccreditationCurriculumQuality (philosophy)Engineering managementEngineering educationEngineering ethicsComputer scienceEngineeringPedagogySociologyMedical education

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

UOIT’s Electrical Engineering program was launched in September 2005. The driving factors and critical requirements for this program were unique, and led to the development of a curriculum which is innovative in many respects, yet maintains the best features of traditional EE programs. The development effort focused on the quality of the curriculum, in terms of content, pedagogy and delivery, as quality is important to students, prospective employers, graduate schools, accreditation bodies and the engineering community. Since the notion of quality is always multi-dimensional, we provide here the rationale for the EE program from many perspectives: generalized vs. specialized,, problem solving vs. engineering design, technical vs. complementary studies, circuits vs. signals, analog vs. digital, lab experimentation vs. computer simulation, and knowledge-sake vs. market-oriented.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.957
Threshold uncertainty score0.633

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.196
Teacher spread0.190 · 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 designQualitative
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 topicExperimental Learning in EngineeringFrench-language works237,207