MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2945476682 · doi:10.18260/1-2--30237

Creating Problem Taxonomies for WeBWorK in Mechanical Engineering

2020· article· en· W2945476682 on OpenAlexaff
Agnes D’Entremont, Juan Antonio Moreno Abelló

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware Engineering Techniques and Practices
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTaxonomy (biology)Computer scienceSubject (documents)World Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract WeBWorK is an open-source, online homework system widely used in mathematics at the post-secondary level, with a number of institutions developing WeBWorK problems for use in engineering. The WeBWorK Open Problem Library (OPL) contains around 33,000 problems that are freely available to instructors to use within their courses (currently, around 200 mechanical engineering problems are available). The OPL problems are organized under a taxonomy structure of “subject”, “chapter”, and “section”, where subject is an area of study (e.g. linear algebra, probability, etc.), and chapter and section locate a particular problem within the subject (e.g. linear algebra – matrices – inverses), analogous to a textbook structure. Having an easily understandable and comprehensive taxonomy available makes it simpler for contributors to correctly designate their new problems, and for instructor-users to find appropriate problems to assign to their students. While there are some engineering problems available on the OPL, the taxonomies are either not extensive (few problems) or do not truly adhere to the structure above. As well, engineering instructors interested in building a few problems for their classes have the daunting task of creating a taxonomy structure in order to share them. We have created comprehensive proposed taxonomies in three core mechanical engineering subjects (statics, dynamics, mechanics of materials) and a partial taxonomy in a fourth (vibrations) for discussion and approval, and eventual use by future contributors. We have not found any literature that outlines practices for the creation of a new taxonomy, so we have documented our process and provide guidance for the creation of future OPL taxonomies in engineering. Finally, we outline suggestions for the systematic use of searchable keywords in OPL problems that can provide consistency across engineering subject areas and institutions. This work will lay the foundation for educators to more easily contribute to and utilize the growing body of open-source mechanical engineering problems in WeBWorK.

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)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.931
Threshold uncertainty score0.302

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.215 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations4
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSoftware Engineering Techniques and PracticesFrench-language works237,207