Like Water & Oil: Merging Human Science Insights with Natural Science (Engineering) Thinking… the experiential way
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Oil and water don’t mix: a common expression describing two things that do not usually combine well. In this paper I use this analogy to discuss some of the techniques and methods used within a Danish postgraduate engineering stream to merge the contested territory between Human Science, abductive thinking and Natural Science, logical preconceptions (Water & Oil). The course was designed to help young engineers to step outside their normal positivist system of thinking and to explore, embrace or at least suspend judgement on various forms of emotional/meta-physical logic. Students were introduced to practical methods for developing deeper insight into specific human experiences and to apply this genuinely human-centred perspective to their 'engineered' solutions. The broader goal being, to help students to come to deeper understandings and appreciation of the people for whom they would propose design 'solutions'. The pedagogical process was intended to disrupt their preconceptions in such a way as to help them see many situations more clearly; a process of in-sight based engineering.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".