MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3002447922 · doi:10.24908/pceea.vi0.13710

CAPSTONE DESIGN PROJECTS WITH INDUSTRY PARTNERS: A 6-YEAR EXPERIENCE REPORT

2019· article· en· W3002447922 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA) · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicInformation Systems Education and Curriculum Development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCapstoneDeliverableTimelineEngineering managementSet (abstract data type)Scheme (mathematics)Computer scienceEngineeringSystems engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Since 2013, the fourth-year capstone design courses for the electrical and computer engineering programs at UBC are working only with projects defined by industrial partners. These capstone courses run over two terms (September to April) and are worth 10 credits. The projects involves teams of five students, which follow a common timeline, produce a common set of deliverables, and have a common evaluation scheme –with some latitude for variation based on the nature of the project and the type of partner. A key objective is to include non-technical graduate attributes, the so-called “soft skills”, in our learning outcomes. In this paper, we describe our current course framework, our constraints and design choices, and we report lessons learned and improvements implemented over 6 years.

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.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.144
Threshold uncertainty score0.476

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.210 · 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