MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2592842757 · doi:10.24908/pceea.v0i0.6480

A GRADUATE COURSE IN FIRE PROTECTIVE DESIGN AND BUILDING CODES AN INDUSTRY AND UNIVERSITY COLLABORATION

2017· article· en· W2592842757 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
M. J. Frye, P. Zurkan

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA) · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFire effects on concrete materials
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
FundersUniversity of Manitoba
KeywordsEngineeringAuditCourse (navigation)Engineering educationMedical educationEngineering managementEngineering ethicsMedicineBusinessAccounting

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Since the fall of 2013, the Faculty of Engineering has offered a graduate course in Fire Protective Design and Building Codes based on Part 3 of the National Building Code of Canada. The course is made available to graduate students in architecture and to all branches of engineering. It is also offered to off campus practicing architects and engineers who wish to either take the course for credit or who would like to audit the course.Introduction of this course into the graduate studies program at the University of Manitoba was the direct result of collaboration between the university Centre for Engineering Professional Practice and Engineering Education and industry. Industry financial support for the course instructors was provided by the Winnipeg Construction Association and the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Manitoba. (Engineers Geoscientists Manitoba).This paper provides an overview of the course objectives, the course content and the expected and realized outcomes. The course proved to be very popular, with course registration averaging between fourteen and eighteen graduate students each year. It was highly rated by the year end student course evaluations. It was particularly popular with international graduate students, many who came from countries where exposure to fire protective design and building codes was limited or non-existent. As a spin off from the course, in 2015, the Winnipeg Construction Association began offering a workshop/seminar series of five half day courses. These workshop/seminars have been oversubscribed and are attended by a very diverse group of construction practitioners that includes architects, engineers, building officials and contractors.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.997
Threshold uncertainty score0.282

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0840.022

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.208 · 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
GenreOther

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
Published2017
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA)Same topicFire effects on concrete materialsFrench-language works237,207