MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2154786119 · doi:10.1109/ccece.2004.1345323

Including Kyoto in electrical engineering curriculum

2004· article· en· W2154786119 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEngineering Education and Curriculum Development
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKyoto ProtocolGreenhouse gasElectricityEnvironmental economicsCurriculumPromotion (chess)Efficient energy useEnergy consumptionEnergy conservationCarbon creditEnvironmental scienceEngineeringEconomicsPolitical scienceElectrical engineeringEconomic growth

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The paper describes the response to the changing aspirations of first degree electrical engineering students to learn more about energy questions. It begins by reviewing energy use and carbon emissions, with particular emphasis to electricity consumption. Next, the Kyoto Protocol, which imposes to reduce Canadian greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to 6% below 1990 levels by 2008-2012 is described. In the year 2000, Canada's GHG emissions were 20% above the 1990 reference level. So, the gap between Canada's Kyoto commitment and our total projected emissions is becoming alarmingly large. It is indicated that Canada can reach its target by using classical energy saving mechanisms, as well as Kyoto implementation mechanisms. It is concluded that the implementation of the new teaching material in electrical engineering education can make students able to obtain further insight in energy questions and induce the promotion of technological options for long term sustained emissions reduction.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.222
Threshold uncertainty score0.586

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.206 · 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