Design Projects In The Mechanical Engineering Curriculum At Sherbrooke University Past, Present, And Future
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since 1992, students in our undergraduate mechanical engineering program have been carrying out major design projects.The process of integrating major design project activities was spread over three phases.The first phase, which took place between 1992 and 1994, consisted of a pilot program with forty students.The implementation of an engineering design option between 1995 and 1999 constituted the second phase.The last phase embraced the complete reform of the undergraduate curriculum based on the development of competencies and the horizontal/vertical integration of engineering sciences and engineering design.One of the principal objectives of the major design projects is to allow the students to live a major design experience within the undergraduate curriculum.The students work on the same project during the last four terms of their program (more than two calendar years as a result of the work terms).They receive 12 credits for their design project work.This paper presents our ten years of experience in using design projects as a tool for teaching engineering design.It also sets out our development plan for teaching engineering design over the next five years.NSERC (National Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada) Engineering Design Chair will support these future developments. ENGINEERING DESIGN PROJECTS 1992 to 1994 -Pilot Program in Engineering DesignFollowing a literature review on the use of design projects as a tool for teaching engineering design in other universities and an assessment of the scale of the work required for introducing major design projects in our program, our department decided to start with a pilot program.The principal advantage of this approach was the state of mind of the project stakeholders (professors Page 7.376.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.025 | 0.005 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".