MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3178486430 · doi:10.24908/pceea.vi0.14868

SIMULATING CLASSROOMS: EXPERIENCE WITH AGENT-BASED MODELS IN ENGINEERING EDUCATION

2021· article· en· W3178486430 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Nathalie Drzewiecki, Gayle Laird, Nancy J. Nelson, Riya Pande, R. Paul, Andjela Popovic, Juan Villarreal, Robert W. Brennan

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA) · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicComplex Systems and Decision Making
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersSuncor Energy Incorporated
KeywordsScholarshipComputer scienceScience and engineeringEngineering educationRapid prototypingFocus (optics)Natural (archaeology)Mathematics educationEngineering ethicsEngineeringEngineering managementPsychologyMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we share our experiences applying agent-based modelling (ABM) to engineeringeducation problems. ABM is a well-established modelling approach that has been successfully applied to a range of natural science, engineering science, and social science problems. However, its application to the scholarship of teaching and learning is in the early stages. The examples in this paper focus on two general areas: (1) teaching and learning, and (2) academic administration. We follow an established ABM framework to describe how each model was approached and how the models differ from each other. Our experience has been that ABM offers a promising tool for engineering education researchers, particularly as an early “prototyping” tool when designing an engineering education study.

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 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)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.112
Threshold uncertainty score0.776

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.259 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations1
Published2021
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA)Same topicComplex Systems and Decision MakingFrench-language works237,207