Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper describes the approach taken to team development in a preliminary year engineering design class at the University of Manitoba.With this approach, student design teams assume a significant level of responsibility for the conduct of all components of the course.The course management system that emphasizes individual and collective responsibilities and formal training in team development is discussed.Engineering Design is a required Preliminary Year course for all Engineering students at the University of Manitoba.More than 1200 students have taken this course since its introduction in January 1999.Classes as large as 100 students attend one lecture and one three-hour laboratory period per week.Laboratory work is Design Team based, so effective operation of the teams is critical if we are to meet our teaching goals.Team membership is assigned by the professor.A maximum of 20 Design Teams are created per section, each with a target size of five students.Initially no Design Team will have fewer than four or more than six members.Team size can decrease during the term because of withdrawals, but in no case will a team continue with fewer that three members.Only twice since the initiation of the course has it been necessary to deal with the integration of depleted Design Teams.The stated purpose of the course is to provide students with an introduction to the engineering design process.Design realities such as assumption, approximation, uncertainty, and compromise are introduced through open-ended, student-controlled, laboratory projects.Individual and collective responsibilities are emphasised through the course management system that has been developed.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.004 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".