MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3036902165 · doi:10.24908/pceea.vi0.14146

EXPERIENCE AND REFLECTION ON AN INTEGRATED MATHEMATICS CURRICULUM FOR AN ENGINEERING ARTICULATION PROGRAM

2020· article· en· W3036902165 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Robert W. Brennan, Kim L. Johnston, S. Li, Nancy J. Nelson, Anders Nygren, R. Paul, Monique Sullivan

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA) · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEngineering Education and Curriculum Development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArticulation (sociology)CurriculumMathematics educationReflection (computer programming)Engineering educationPopularityComputer scienceExtension (predicate logic)EngineeringPedagogyMathematicsEngineering managementSociologyPsychologyProgramming languagePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we provide an overview of an integrated mathematics curriculum that is a key element of an engineering articulation program (polytechnic to university). This integrated approach to teaching mathematics is a logical extension of the integrated curriculum models that have been gaining popularity for undergraduate engineering education since the 1960’s, and is well suited to the fast-paced nature of an engineering articulation program. We provide background on the engineering articulation program and the integrated mathematics curriculum, and provide reflections on the implementation of this approach.

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.027
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.066

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.027
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.007
Scholarly communication0.0070.004
Open science0.0020.009
Research integrity0.0030.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.234 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations2
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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