MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2411745225 · doi:10.18260/1-2--18351

Teaching High-Rise Plumbing Design for Engineers

2020· article· en· W2411745225 on OpenAlexaff
Ahmed Megri

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFluid dynamics and aerodynamics studies
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArchitectural engineeringProcess (computing)EngineeringEngineering design processCurriculumClass (philosophy)Civil engineeringConstruction engineeringSystems engineeringEngineering managementComputer scienceMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Teaching High- rise Plumbing Design for Engineers The architectural engineering program at the University of Wyoming offers several courses in the areas of HVAC, Plumbing, Fire Protection, Energy and Building Electricity. Plumbing is a discipline founded in hydraulics and legal issues governed by codes and standards. This discipline includes, but is not limited to, the design of hot and cold water, storm, drainage and venting systems. Many documents, books and references are available covering the topics associated with plumbing. However, the majority of them are oriented toward plumbing techniques and practical issues. Little of the information available is primarily for engineers. Within this paper we discuss the integration of plumbing into the Architectural Engineering curriculum, as well as how high‐rise plumbing can be taught for engineers. We also discuss how to combine the fundamentals, such as hydraulics, and different codes and standards, to create a successful class. A comprehensive capstone project that will integrate various components of plumbing will be discussed in this paper. The particularity of high‐rise plumbing vs. low‐rise plumbing is also discussed. Also, this paper describes the experiences we encountered over the past several years while developing and teaching the plumbing curricula in the Architectural Engineering program. In addition, we describe the history of the architectural engineering curriculum at the University of Wyoming, the plumbing design project, and the building design process. Most importantly, project methodology will be discussed, including the design of various systems, system selection and commissioning, and will culminate with administrative topics. We demonstrate this methodology through the use of a comprehensive design project. We discuss this design course from the students’ point of view, focusing on the experiencegained in design, codes and safety, as well as in written and oral communication skills. We alsodescribe the methods we use in terms of learning outcomes to evaluate the effectiveness of thecapstone design program.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score0.110

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0330.005

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.193
Teacher spread0.179 · 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

Citations4
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicFluid dynamics and aerodynamics studiesFrench-language works237,207