MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3153870390 · doi:10.18260/1-2--35025

Overcoming Non-numerical Challenges in an Engineering Numerical Methods Course

2020· article· en· W3153870390 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.

Bibliographic record

Venue2020 ASEE Virtual Annual Conference Content Access Proceedings · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicExperimental Learning in Engineering
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCourse (navigation)Computer scienceMATLABSyllabusNumerical analysisPopulationCurriculumNumerical integrationMathematics educationCalculus (dental)MathematicsProgramming languageEngineeringPedagogy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper addresses the application of some of the current pedagogical practices in an engineering numerical methods course. The paper describes the course and explains its challenges. It then briefly goes over the theoretical framework and the engineering accreditation requirements which shape its design and development. The course design, its implementation, and observations performed by a third-party research assistant are listed next. In particular, instructional remedies developed in order to improve students' learning experience are detailed. Lastly, the course instructor and the research assistant discussed some of the improvements and unforeseen student behaviour. Note that the course instructor is a new engineering educator who would like to share his course design, get feedback on the implemented course developments, and in general use this as an opportunity to self-reflect on the changes made to the course and how they can be scaled for other offerings of the course in the future.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.688
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.090
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.238 · 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