MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2794531964 · doi:10.18260/1-2--27949

Board # 89 : Scholarships for Future Leaders in Electric Energy and Smart Grid

2018· article· en· W2794531964 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Ali Mehrizi‐Sani, Chen‐Ching Liu, Robert G. Olsen

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicExperimental Learning in Engineering
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaElectric Power Research Institute
KeywordsBachelorWorkforceScholarshipReputationElectric powerInstitutionPower (physics)Engineering managementPolitical scienceMedical educationEngineeringEconomic growthEconomicsMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Electrical power is critical to the U.S. economy.However, many of the power engineering workforce are eligible for retirement in the near future.The loss of their years of experience is a serious threat to the power system operation, reliability, and efficiency.Building on our strong power program with a high national and international reputation in education and research and using a grant funding from the National Science Foundation's Scholarships in STEM (S-STEM) program, we establish a scholarship program for recruitment, retention, and mentoring of future power engineering leaders in electric energy and smart grid.Our specific objectives are to increase the number of students in the following groups in power engineering by 50%: (i) Bachelor's, (ii) Master's, (iii) underrepresented minorities, and (iv) women, by providing opportunities for lower division students, community college students, and four-year university students to study in Bachelor's and Master's degrees.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.126
Threshold uncertainty score0.423

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0080.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0020.006
Research integrity0.0060.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1260.065

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.209 · 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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicExperimental Learning in EngineeringFrench-language works237,207