MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2612535735 · doi:10.1016/j.procir.2017.01.012

Continuing Education and Personalization of Design Methods to Improve their Acceptance in Practice – An Explorative Study

2017· article· en· W2612535735 on OpenAlexaff
Selin Üreten, Gregor Beckmann, Eilika Schwenke, Dieter Krause, Shi Cao

Bibliographic record

VenueProcedia CIRP · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicDesign Education and Practice
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPersonalizationModular programmingComputer scienceControl (management)Knowledge managementDesign methodsEngineering managementEngineeringManagement scienceArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

One possibility to establish and foster efficient method transfer from academia to industry is via the heads of professional designers and design students. The transfer and use of design methods in a sustainable way is related to the methods’ acceptance by the user which is accompanied by many challenges. Educational concepts and design method adaptions have been chosen as decisive control parameters among many others in order to understand and evaluate how these can influence the acceptance of design methods in industry. An interview study to gain an understanding of the rationale of educational needs of engineers has been conducted to enrich existing literature in this area. The evaluation of feedback from academia-industry cooperation revealed specific challenges accompanied with educational concepts for modularization design methods. Based on these findings, an adaption was developed and an experiment study was conducted with students as future designers to decode variable factors in design training, gain qualitative feedback to a specific adaption and gain an understanding for the conditions and limitations of an experimental study. Joint conclusion reveals the need for improved education in method transfer and adaptions of the design methods to user-specific needs and paved the way for a series of experiments with various treatments of study participants regarding different personalized adaptions in design methods.

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)0.034
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.086
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.181

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0340.086
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.398
Teacher spread0.344 · 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 designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations11
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProcedia CIRPSame topicDesign Education and PracticeFrench-language works237,207