MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2555029378 · doi:10.18260/p.27065

Towards a Multidisciplinary Teamwork Training Series for Undergraduate Engineering Students: Development and Assessment of Two First-year Workshops

2016· article· en· W2555029378 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEngineering Education and Curriculum Development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersUniversity of Waterloo
KeywordsTeamworkMultidisciplinary approachEngineering educationCurriculumContext (archaeology)PsychologyMedical educationEngineeringPedagogyEngineering managementManagementSociologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Teams have become the default work structure in organizations; thus, in work settings that emphasize teamwork, employees must have knowledge, skills and abilities (KSAs) to communicate and coordinate with their colleagues. Yet, teamwork skills are rarely "taught" in engineering curricula; in fact, compared to business representatives, university educators have been found to underestimate the value of teamwork KSAs. Instead, students are expected to develop teamwork and leadership skills via a sink-or-swim approach where they are assigned group work and left to perform as they can. Often, these poor teamwork experiences combined with the lack of training and opportunities for guided reflection lead to students disliking working in groups, impacting not just the cognitive but also the affective domain of learning.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.621
Threshold uncertainty score0.686

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.272 · 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