MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2187294315 · doi:10.4122/1.1000054527

Air Pump – Improvement of a ‘Skyscraper-type’ exercise for Mechanical Engineering Programs

2011· article· en· W2187294315 on OpenAlexaff
Guy Cloutier

Bibliographic record

VenueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicExperimental Learning in Engineering
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContext (archaeology)Test (biology)Reflection (computer programming)Disengagement theoryWork (physics)Set (abstract data type)Point (geometry)EngineeringComputer sciencePsychologySimulationMechanical engineeringMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The ‘Air Pump’ is a current criteria-based 'design-build-test' exercise in the MEC1110 first-year project module. Students work from a ‘functional requirement’ sheet where criteria are related to primary and complementary functions and constraints. Building materials are disposable coffee cups and stir-sticks, freezer bags, and the like. Flow, pressure, and volume are tested. A first reflection phase is individual, followed by a group discussion. Team organisation, time management, responsibilities are discussed as well as ethics (as all had chances to ‘pretend’ on their score-sheets or financial reporting). Some tuning is required to improve the percentage of working pumps, and the benefits of the reflection phase. The teachers of the module hope a collaborative freestyle hands-on exercise by CDIO colleagues will benefit all involved. (A short video 'AirPump(EPM)_iPod.mp4' 16MB can be made available.)

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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 score0.044
Threshold uncertainty score0.146

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0440.014

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.185 · 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

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)Same topicExperimental Learning in EngineeringFrench-language works237,207