MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4244501589 · doi:10.1177/0270467610396694

Adaptive Engineering

2011· article· en· W4244501589 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueBulletin of Science Technology & Society · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDiverse Academic Research Areas
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCurriculumMultidisciplinary approachEngineering ethicsReflexivityContext (archaeology)ObligationSociologyComputer scienceEngineering managementEngineeringPolitical sciencePedagogySocial scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Engineers today cannot meet their professional obligation to the welfare of society if they do not have a broad, multidisciplinary vision, and yet a multidisciplinary vision is becoming enormously difficult to obtain. A new curriculum must emerge that can integrate a focused, discipline-based scientific approach with an integrated approach. To do this, we must recognize that there is already a structure that is deeply embedded into the current pedagogy, which values performance ratios such as efficiency as paramount. Current trends indicate a call for a broader, reflexive, and preventative curriculum, but like many other calls for change, these will fail if the focus continues to be on wrong values. A model for an adaptive engineering curriculum is developed that strives to maintain a scientific approach as well as a broad “culture-based approach.” A new way of thinking about engineering curriculum must involve a “resymbolization” in which experience, context, community, and certain nonmeasurable principles are valued.

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.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.849
Threshold uncertainty score0.989

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.013
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.246 · 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