MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3180210067 · doi:10.24908/pceea.vi0.14826

INTEGRATING DIVERSITY OF USERS’ HUMAN FACTORS INTO A CORNERSTONE ENGINEERING DESIGN COURSE

2021· article· en· W3180210067 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Erica Attard, Michael Greig, Patrick Neumann, Filippo A. Salustri

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA) · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicDesign Education and Practice
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCornerstoneDeliverableDiversity (politics)Inclusion (mineral)Engineering design processComputer scienceProcess (computing)Phase (matter)Engineering managementEngineeringSystems engineeringPsychologyMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The instructors of the undergraduate cornerstone design course in Mechanical and Industrial Engineering at Ryerson University aim to integrate diversity and inclusion into students’ design education. Our goal is to provide resources that students can use to understand human capabilities and limitations, so their designs are better suited to a wide range of users. The project was broken down in four phases: Phase 1 consisted of scoping deliverables and background research; Phase 2 included courseware development; Phase 3 employed the courseware into the Fall 2019 offering of our cornerstone design course; and Phase 4 reviewed and analysed student’s work to determine the efficacy of the courseware. To initiate this effort, we focused on three Human Factors: vision, hearing, and strength. We created a process whereby students could assess these Factors quantitatively for specific interactions and use the assessments to justify specific functional requirements and constraints of theirown designs.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.220
Threshold uncertainty score0.884

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.208 · 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 designObservational
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 topicDesign Education and PracticeFrench-language works237,207