MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2791002377 · doi:10.1115/1.2017-dec-11

Research and Educational Programs for Connected and Autonomous Vehicles at the University of Waterloo

2017· article· en· W2791002377 on OpenAlexaffabout
R B Mckenzie, John McPhee

Bibliographic record

VenueMechanical Engineering · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElectric and Hybrid Vehicle Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAutomotive industryLeverage (statistics)Engineering managementPowertrainEngineeringEngineering educationComputer scienceTransport engineeringArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article presents an overview of the research and educational programs for connected and autonomous vehicles at the University of Waterloo (UWaterloo). UWaterloo is Canada’s largest engineering school, with 9,500 engineering students and 309 engineering faculty. The University of Waterloo Centre for Automotive Research (WatCAR) for faculty, staff and students is contributing to the development of in-vehicle systems education programs for connected and autonomous vehicles (CAVs) at Waterloo. Over 130 Waterloo faculty, 110 from engineering, are engaged in WatCAR’s automotive and transportation systems research programs. The school’s CAV efforts leverage WatCAR research expertise from five areas: (1) Connected and Autonomous; (2) Software and Data; (3) Lightweighting and Fabrication; (4) Structure and Safety; and (5) Advanced Powertrain and Emissions. Foundational and operational artificial intelligence expertise from the University of Waterloo Artificial Intelligence Institute complements the autonomous driving efforts, in disciplines that include neural networks, pattern analysis and machine learning.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.263
Threshold uncertainty score0.524

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0640.012

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 head0.246
Teacher spread0.218 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations2
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMechanical EngineeringSame topicElectric and Hybrid Vehicle TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207