MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2885164646 · doi:10.24908/pceea.v0i0.10572

Synthetic Biology for Teaching Control Engineering: A Case Study in a Student-Directed, Collaborative Environment

2018· article· en· W2885164646 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Christian Euler, Radhakrishnan Mahadevan

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA) · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBiomedical and Engineering Education
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCurriculumConstructivist teaching methodsControl (management)Mathematics educationMetacognitionSynthetic biologyTeaching methodComputer sciencePedagogyPsychologyBiologyComputational biologyArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract –As the bio-based economy expands, Chemical Engineering graduates will find themselves in new contexts for which they must be prepared. The broad shift toward including biology in departmental research and teaching activities reflects this, but relatively little formal thought has been given to the pedagogy of biology within Chemical Engineering curricula. The case study presented here is centered on the use of a biological control system in a lab setting as the means by which advanced control concepts can be taught to upper-year and graduate students within a constructivist framework. This approach was successfully applied to achieve all of the learning outcomes for the lab, but student feedback indicated that structured collaboration and metacognitive activities should have been given higher priority to improve student experiences. A re-iteration of this framework for upper-year lab curriculum design based on student feedback is presented.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.049

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0080.004
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0030.005
Research integrity0.0040.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.217 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA)Same topicBiomedical and Engineering EducationFrench-language works237,207