MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2886971758 · doi:10.24908/pceea.v0i0.10380

DESCRIBING AND MEASURING THE ENGINEERING KNOWLEDGE BASED USING CONCEPT DOMAINS

2018· article· en· W2886971758 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Jason Grove, Marios A. Ioannidis, D. M. Wright

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA) · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEngineering Education and Pedagogy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKnowledge baseProperty (philosophy)Graduation (instrument)Computer scienceBase (topology)CurriculumComputationSubject (documents)Concept inventoryConcept mapKnowledge managementMathematics educationData scienceArtificial intelligenceMathematicsEpistemologyAlgorithmPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract – We describe the chemical engineering knowledge base in terms of five distinct concept domains: i) mathematics and computation, ii) conservation, iii) equilibrium and spontaneity, iv) rates, and v) the structure and property of materials. These concept domains underpin the curriculum and evolve from disparate subject domains presented in the first year into a cohesive whole by graduation. The knowledge base for chemical engineering can thus be expressed in terms of achieving threshold concepts related to each of these domains. 
 This formulation of the knowledge base suggests that it may be examined using concept inventory testing. We provide examples of how such testing can be implemented in order to produce meaningful data on students’ level of concept attainment. We believe that this approach may be of interest to others as a robust and sustainable method for the ongoing assessment of CEAB Graduate Attribute 1.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.280
Threshold uncertainty score0.917

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.204 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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 topicEngineering Education and PedagogyFrench-language works237,207