Bibliographic record
Abstract
The annual Ontario Engineering Competition (OEC) challenges participants from Ontario engineering schools to identify solutions to challenges experienced by the engineering profession. The competition includes six competition categories: Junior Team Design, Senior Team Design, Parliamentary Debate, Engineering Communications, Consulting Engineering, and Innovative Design. OEC is the regional competition to qualify for the Canadian Engineering Competition (CEC), with the top two placing teams in each category qualifying to participate in the CEC. The University of Waterloo (UW) has held internal competitions to select the debate and technical speaking competitors for many years. The competitors for the innovative design are selected based on a brief proposal. Several years ago, the Engineering Society introduced the Waterloo Engineering Competition (WEC), held twice annually in the Spring and Fall, to select teams to compete in the Junior Team Design, Senior Team Design, and Consulting categories for OEC. In an attempt to provide more guidance to the WEC winners prior to their participation in OEC, the six winning teams were invited to participate in a design workshop. A discussion of the design workshop and student feedback for the past two years will be discussed. A comparative study between the two workshop offerings will be used for future improvements of the WEC and pre-OEC workshop.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".