Educating Aerospace Design Engineers: Perspectives from Design Creativity Theory
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
When seeking candidates for engineering design positions, aerospace companies usually seek to hire high qualified professionals while overlooking recent graduates from engineering schools. The reason for this is the opinion that most of the engineers graduating from universities do not possess the skill sets the companies are seeking and that it takes too long to train recent graduates in the complexities of the aerospace design process. There is a need to minimize the gap between the needs of the aerospace industry and the training of engineers at the university level and this need cannot be met without the collaboration of aerospace firms, universities and government. In this paper, we propose an approach toeducating undergraduate aerospace engineering students based on design creativity theory. The NSERC Chair in Aerospace Design Engineering (NCADE) at Concordia University will be used as a test bed to implement, validate, improve and promote this educational strategy.
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 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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 it