A Case Study in Incorporating Significant Design Content into a Third-Year Industrial Engineering Course “Design and Analysis of Production Systems”
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In recent years the CEAB has ben communicating to Engineering Faculties in Canada that “Engineering Design” is a key attribute that graduates should have when they finish their undergraduate degree. It hasalso been suggested that producing engineers with significant design skills is important for the Canadian economy as a whole and, in Dalhousie University’s context, Nova Scotia. Unfortunately “Design” is adifficult skill to teach or transfer; a recent article in Maclean’s suggests many engineering graduates around the country are leaving the university with an uneasy feeling that all they have been taught to dois “plug and chug.” How do we respond to this need? This paper offers a case study of how a third-year Industrial Engineering course shifted from a mainly book-and-formula based course to an offering which incorporated significant open-ended design content (25%) intended to both satisfy CEAB requirements and address the need for students to exercise their creative, hands-on problem-solving skills. Student project outcomes as well as anecdotal and SRI data suggest the shift to a design-focussedcourse was a success.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".