MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3002096696 · doi:10.24908/pceea.vi0.13868

THE INVERTED/INTEGRATIVE/OPEN LAB COURSE: A MECHANICAL ENGINEERING LAB EXAMPLE

2019· article· en· W3002096696 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Jean Lemay

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA) · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicExperimental Learning in Engineering
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
FundersUniversité Laval
KeywordsTeamworkPlan (archaeology)ScheduleTest (biology)Engineering managementComputer scienceCourse (navigation)Test planControl (management)Software engineeringSystems engineeringEngineeringArtificial intelligenceManagementMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Based on the CEAB investigation attribute requirements, the Laval University Mechanical Engineering department has entirely modified its philosophy regarding the lab course. This course is now based on teamwork projects that take place throughout the semester. Different experimental setups are available to accommodate up to 20 teams of three students on a 24h/7d schedule. This paper offers some examples of lab benches and problems designed for this approach. To begin, student teams must describe the apparatus on which they will conduct an investigation and propose a problem they intend to study. Next, teams present theoretical background and a literature review. They determine the physical quantities to be measured and describe the measuring instruments to be used. Then, they plan and prepare a test campaign, including development of their own data acquisition, control and processing programs using LabVIEW. Finally, teams conduct their test campaign, analyze the results (including detailed uncertainty analysis) and report on their findings.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.040

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.004

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.211
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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 routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA)Same topicExperimental Learning in EngineeringFrench-language works237,207