MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2613854273 · doi:10.18260/1-2--10364

The Development Of The Competencies Liinked To The Human Dimension Of Engineering

2020· article· en· W2613854273 on OpenAlexaffabout
Richard Thibault, René Hivon, Danielle L'Heureux, N. Boutin

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEngineering Education and Pedagogy
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntrapersonal communicationCritical thinkingCreativityEngineering educationEngineering ethicsProcess (computing)Session (web analytics)Dimension (graph theory)Interpersonal communicationComputer sciencePsychologyEngineeringPedagogyEngineering managementMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article describes how a group of faculty members at the School of Engineering, Universit de Sherbrooke, Canada, are going about implementing a novel and fully integrated approach to developing in engineering undergraduate students the competencies linked to the human dimension of engineering. First, a critical and skeptical eye is being used to describe and assess the results of the traditional modus operandi coined "the two solitudes": "soft" courses taught by non-engineers on one part, and technical courses taught by engineering professors who are illequipped to dwelve to any meaningful depth in such topics as ethics, team work, communication, leadership, creativity, critical thinking, engineering management, etc. on the other part. This article then describes how, after an exhaustive survey of the literature, a grant from the University's Major Pedagogical Innovations Program is being used to devise ways in which the development of the interpersonal and intrapersonal competencies of engineering students will be intimately integrated throughout the whole undergraduate programs with that of the scientific and technical competencies. This entire process is under the responsibility of engineering professors. In order for this ambitious goal to be achieved, the group of faculty put together a strategic plan based on the professional aspects of engineering practice and which calls for five separate but complementary courses of action: a continuous technology watch, a research program, the design of appropriate pedagogical material, the training of engineering professors in the use of this material, the online classroom use of same material and, lastly, the publication of results. The article ends with an analysis of the results achieved so far and an optimistic look at the future that this novel approach allows to envisage.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.474
Threshold uncertainty score0.146

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.213 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEngineering Education and PedagogyFrench-language works237,207