MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2623186459 · doi:10.18260/1-2--6791

Sources Of Industrial Projects For Dfma Course

2020· article· en· W2623186459 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jon E. Freckleton

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEngineering Education and Curriculum Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCapstoneCourse (navigation)Session (web analytics)Quarter (Canadian coin)Work (physics)EngineeringEngineering managementCapstone courseComputer scienceWorld Wide WebMechanical engineering

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 2563 Sources of Industrial Projects for DFMA Course Jon E. Freckleton Rochester Institute of Technology Abstract It has been our experience in both the Capstone Senior Design course and the Design for Manufacturing and Assembly (DFMA) course that students are far more interested in working on “real” projects. The problem is finding industrial support for about 100 projects per year. This paper will consider the various sources we have used. RIT works on the quarter system; DFMA is a four credit hour course; the project represents 25%-40% of the grade. Background The undergraduate DFMA course started as a required course 10 years ago. It was based on a very successful graduate course. The graduate course was an evening course with almost all students holding full-time engineering jobs (‘) . Projects usually related to the students job or were obtained from a peer at work. The few full time students were allowed to use a commercial product they had at home or purchased at a local store. RIT is a quarter based institution with a cooperative education program. For engineering students it is a five year program. As freshman and sophomores, they attend three consecutive quarters with the summer quarter as vacation. As third, fourth, and fifth year students they alternate academic quarters and work blocks. They must complete five co-op work blocks to graduate. The students are split into “A” and “B” blocks so the Institute holds classes all four quarters and about 50% of each class is on campus each quarter. Some co-op employers hire only for double blocks, wanting the student for six consecutive months. DFMA is a required course for fourth year students. Prerequisites are Geometric Dimensioning and Tolerances and Manufacturing Processes. A normal track student will have completed two work blocks prior to taking this course. Due to a significant number of transfer students, and students who have experienced academic problems, the class usually has a few third year students, and several fifth year students. The course covers two major areas: Design for Assembly (DFA) and Design for Manufacture (DFM). DFA covers two quantifiable measurements of assembleability; Boothroyd Dewhurst (BDI) manual and software techniques’2’ , and the SEER (3) Technology software technique. DFM covers: casting, molding, sheet metal, powder metal, extrusion, forging, and machining. The BDI DFM software (4) I.S used for the five processes that have been developed to date. Homework consists of: 1. Reading from the text 2. Four papers 3. A DFA manual calculation 4. A “Tip-a-Can” design, and working prototype”’ 5. A DFMA project; due in phases, to force timely work, and to make sure the grading workload is almost livable.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.259
Threshold uncertainty score0.191

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.196 · 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 designNot applicable
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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEngineering Education and Curriculum DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207