MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2167618533 · doi:10.24908/pceea.v0i0.4672

ENGINEERING PORTFOLIOS AT THE UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO: DEVELOPING SKILLS FOR COMMUNICATION,PROFESSIONALISM AND LIFE-LONG LEARNING

2012· article· en· W2167618533 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Chris Ambidge, Alan Chong, Penny Kinnear, Deborah Tihanyi, Lydia Wilkinson

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA) · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEngineering Education and Curriculum Development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPortfolioContext (archaeology)Engine departmentTelecommunications engineeringEngineering educationEngineering managementAdvisory committeeCommunication skillsEngineeringComputer scienceMedical educationManagementTelecommunicationsBusinessMedicineGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 2005, the University of Toronto’s Chemical Engineering and Applied Chemistry Department (CHE), in collaboration with the Engineering Communication Program (ECP), piloted a communications portfolio for second-year students. Over the past seven years the communication portfolio has been expanded into the third-year CHE requirements, adapted for use in the Mechanical and Industrial Engineering Department(MIE) and next year will be used within the Civil Engineering Department. Through a discussion of the CHE and MIE portfolios we compare two different portfolio models and explain how this model has been adapted to its newest context in Civil Engineering at the University of Toronto. Through this approach we aim to show the usefulness of this portfolio model in supporting student development in communication, professionalism and life-long learning, three of the CEAB graduate attributes.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.170
Threshold uncertainty score0.585

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.198
Teacher spread0.193 · 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 teacher head, 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
Published2012
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA)Same topicEngineering Education and Curriculum DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207