CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENTS IN THIRD YEAR CHEMICAL ENGINEERING DESIGN
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An impending retirement has led us to reevaluate the course: should we keep it - and if so who teaches it, or should we look to change it? The course was co-taught with a new faculty member, coupled with internal reviews and discussions. Ultimately, we decided to keep the course, and also to work to broaden its base. 
 Historically, the design problems have been petrochemical in nature. Each team gets a reaction, with a first order rate law, as well as a production rate and fractional conversion. From this, they do the design calculations for a reactor and separator, and also generate the base engineering drawings. 
 This past year, the project types were expanded to include environmental remediation and hydrometallurgical extraction. The environmental remediation problems involved wastewater processing (eg., BOD oxidation) which can be treated as a first order reaction. The hydrometallurgical problem (Li leaching from spodumene) also was set up as first order. Additionally, we provided the option of a case study review. The students chose a classic chemical safety incident, reviewed the details, and created a summary report which included recommendations on how to incorporate learnings from the incident into the curriculum.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it