MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2622494646 · doi:10.18260/1-2--12021

Enhancements To An Undergraduate Mechanisms Course

2020· article· en· W2622494646 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMechatronics Education and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOverhead projectorComputer scienceSession (web analytics)Presentation (obstetrics)ProjectorSoftwareMultimediaOverhead (engineering)Computer graphics (images)Software engineeringHuman–computer interactionArtificial intelligenceWorld Wide WebProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract NOTE: The first page of text has been automatically extracted and included below in lieu of an abstract Session 1520 Enhancements to an Undergraduate Mechanisms Course W. L. Cleghorn, N. Dechev Mechanical and Industrial Engineering Department University of Toronto Introduction This paper covers techniques used at the University of Toronto to enhance the presentation of materials for an undergraduate mechanisms course. Some are based on the implementation visual aids in lecture presentations. The aids include the use of (i) translucent plastic models suitable for display on an overhead projector, (ii) physical models suitable for demonstration using a document camera and video projector, and (iii) computer animations which may be shown using a video projector. Examples are provided for each. The paper includes discussions of the relative merits and limitations of each of these methods of providing demonstrations, and means that the authors have employed to maximize their impact. In addition, the paper discusses the results of implementing a laboratory based on the Working Model 2D software. Classroom Demonstrations For several years the authors have been involved in the teaching of mechanisms courses. At one time they relied solely on translucent plastic models with an overhead projector to illustrate machine motions1. The models included linkages, meshing of gears and gear trains. These models are limited to the demonstration of planar systems. More recently, computer software packages have been available. They permit animations of more complicated spatial systems to be developed and illustrated2,3,4. Many lecture rooms at the University of Toronto, Faculty of Applied Science and Engineering are now equipped with a video projector and a document camera. The authors have used this equipment to advantage in the teaching of an undergraduate mechanisms course. Both physical models and computer animations are shown to students using this equipment, which complement the theoretical lecture material. At least one animation or model demonstration is shown during each lecture. They are shown to stimulate student interest and improve their understanding. “Proceedings of the 2003 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition Copyright  2003, American Society for Engineering Education”

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 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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.970
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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)0.0010.001

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.252 · 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

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMechatronics Education and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207