MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3180430515 · doi:10.24908/pceea.vi0.14876

CLASSIFICATION OF GENERIC DESIGN TASKS TO PROMOTE DESIGNER FLEXIBILITY AND INTEGRATION SKILLS IN CAPSTONE PROJECTS

2021· article· en· W3180430515 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
S. Li, Hugo R. Brennan

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA) · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicDesign Education and Practice
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsCapstoneComputer scienceFlexibility (engineering)Design educationMultidisciplinary approachEngineering design processDesign knowledgeDesign briefSoftware engineeringHuman–computer interactionKnowledge managementEngineering managementSystems engineeringDesign technologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Designer flexibility is referred to as an ability to adopt design tools and engineering knowledge to solve design problems. As design methodology is intended to be general for different kinds of design problems, it would not be particularly helpful for designers to connect technical content to specific design applications, and students often face challenges with this connection. To address this issue,we propose five types of generic design tasks, which are applied as a platform for students to integrate their knowledge and skills for design work. These generic design tasks are background research, problem framing, idea generation, decision making and scientific analysis, which can take place in multiple design stages. After mapping design tasks and stages, we can provide commonvocabulary for multidisciplinary design, define skill levels for design assessments, suggest a “reverse” learning path to train design skills from well-defined to open-endedproblems.

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)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.715
Threshold uncertainty score0.628

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.223 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA)Same topicDesign Education and PracticeFrench-language works237,207