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

Including Kyoto in electrical engineering curriculum

2004· article· en· W2154786119 on OpenAlexaffabout
M. Benhaddadi, G. Olivier

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.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.037

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.003

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

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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations6
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEngineering Education and Curriculum DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207