MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3001250508 · doi:10.24908/pceea.vi0.13468

A Decision-Making Framework for Engineering Mathematics Education

2019· article· en· W3001250508 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Bryan Karney, Sasha Gollish, Anne Mather

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA) · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEngineering Education and Curriculum Development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCreativityTheme (computing)Engineering mathematicsMathematics educationEngineering educationEngineering ethicsComputer scienceManagement scienceMathematicsEngineeringEngineering managementPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Engineering is a fascinating blend of mathematics, science, and creativity, which helps to solve some of the world’s leading problems. This paper asserts that mathematics is central to engineering because it is the primary means by which engineers are able to model systems, as well as understand the consequences of their intended actions, designs, and operations. Thus, it follows that educators inherit an ethical responsibility to elucidate the importance of mathematics as a central theme to interventions in the world in general and to engineering in particular. This paper provides a strong theoretical overview of the existing and potential innovations that can be made to traditional undergraduate engineering mathematics instructions and further discusses the perceived gaps in the literature. A framework is proposed for teaching engineering mathematics: mathematics is the primary means by which ethical, responsible decisions can, and should, be made and it is thus crucially important that it be appreciated and taught as such within engineering programs. Keywords: Mathematics, Engineering, Decision-Making

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.488
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.205 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA)Same topicEngineering Education and Curriculum DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207