MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2256179917 · doi:10.18260/1-2--5005

An Application Of Customer Satisfaction Standards In Engineering Management Courses

2020· article· en· W2256179917 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.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEngineering Education and Curriculum Development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuality assuranceUsabilityComputer scienceCustomer satisfactionQuality (philosophy)Quality of analytical resultsEngineering managementQuality management systemEngineering educationQuality managementSoftware engineeringManagement systemEngineeringOperations management

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper discusses the use of two international standards for quality management in engineering education, more specifically in teaching four engineering management courses. However, neither one of these standards is the commonly-recognized ISO 9001. Rather, they are the still widely-unknown, but quickly-applicable, ISO 10001 and ISO 10002. The respective guidelines for codes of conduct and complaint handling were deployed to establish and follow three codes for student satisfaction and quality assurance, as well as to setup and use a simple system for handling unsolicited student feedback and improving course delivery based upon it. Illustrations of the use of the codes, together with sample results of code performance tracking and student surveys on the usability of these codes, are provided. Examples of the feedback received from the students and its processing through a standardized system are also displayed.

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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.577
Threshold uncertainty score0.324

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.229
Teacher spread0.225 · 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