Bibliographic record
Abstract
A case history is presented of a Geological Engineering Program, and an entire Faculty of Engineering facing possible loss of accreditation.The accreditation review process recognized curriculum and administrative deficiencies in the program, and serious underfunding of the Faculty.Correction of the curriculum was made possible by incorporating nationally-established guidelines for design and synthesis, engineering science, basic science, mathematics and the humanities.A Department of Geological Engineering was established to assure scrutiny of the Program by the Faculty of Engineering.Unprecedented action by the Dean in publicizing the problem of serious underfunding, and the strong support from industry, and practicing engineers, resulted in direct government support to the Faculty through an Industrial Development Grant.'\. 2-yNr minimum of EnglnNrlng Sciences and o.Jgn and Synthesis
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.025 | 0.137 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.014 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.061 | 0.020 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".