Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article examines the way we educate future bridge engineers from the perspective of sustainability. The term sustainability is used in its original sense, namely, a quality of a practice that can be continued long into the future because the benefits it creates outweigh its costs. The focus is on the relation between the way we educate future designers of bridges and the value created by the works they design. It is demonstrated that there are several significant flaws in the current curriculum, and recent efforts to inject more “design” into the curriculum are unlikely to bring about needed change. The article proposes incorporating specific elements of knowledge, skills, and values into the curriculum to increase its capacity to produce engineers who are competent and creative. The most important aspect of knowledge to be added to the curriculum is the knowledge obtained from the critical study of good completed bridges. The most important skills to be added are the use of drawing as a tool for enhancing creativity and the use of scientific principles as tools for validating new ideas. The most important values to be taught relate to the duty of the engineering profession to create value for society by designing every bridge to be an increment in a continual process of improvement on existing technology.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.024 | 0.005 |
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".