A LAB TASK GROUP FOR REVIEW AND CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT OF THIRD AND FOURTH-YEAR LABORATORY COURSES
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since the mid-1980’s, the mechanical engineering program at the University of Saskatchewan has included three core third and fourth-year lab courses, each of which consists of 9-10 individual labs. In 2015 a task group was set up to review these courses, including deliverables, scheduling and links to material in corecourses. Since this time, the task group has taken on the major responsibility for continuous improvement of the lab program, including reviewing student evaluations, making changes to labs, and recommending equipment purchases. The task group has also been responsible for a major redesign of the lab program, which will improve delivery and scheduling of labs, alignment with core courses, workload of students, and experience gained by graduate teaching assistants. Smaller apparatus have been designed and built in-house to allow students to gain additional hands-on experience. Labs have been designed to build on one another in order to systematically improve students’ general laboratory skills, including the use of data acquisition systems and experimental design. This new approach was used for the first time in ME 328 in 2019-20. This paper will focus primarily on the role of the task group in continuous improvement, and the lab program redesign. The new ME 328 course is described, along with lessons learned from the first offering. The task group’s role in moving to remote labs during COVID-19 is also discussed.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".