MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4308709637 · doi:10.24908/pceea.vi.15939

Design and Development of an Open-Source Virtual Reality Chemical Processing Plant

2022· article· en· W4308709637 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Paul Hungler, Chris Thurgood, Mariya Marinova, Steve White, Lev Mirzoian, Matthew Thoms, Janice C. Law, Michael Chabot, Kimia Moozeh

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA) · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicProblem and Project Based Learning
Canadian institutionsSt. Lawrence CollegeRoyal Military College of CanadaQueen's University
FundersQueen's University
KeywordsExperiential learningVirtual realityHuman–computer interactionEngineeringComputer scienceMultimediaMathematics educationPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It is challenging to provide students studying in chemical engineering, biotechnology and other related fields with an opportunity to tour and interact with a full-scale chemical processing plant. To address this challenge, an open-sourced virtual reality (VR) chemical processing plant was designed and built to provide students with an experiential learning opportunity. The VR plant is modelled after an ampicillin processing facility complete with a piping and instrumentation diagram (P&ID). The initial student experience inside the VR plant is a tour of the plant, various plant features and unit operations. The tour enables students to freely tour the plant but also engages them in a “Quest” style experience where they need to search for specific areas and components within the plant. An EngPad was designed to provide learners with a help tool to assist their navigation and strengthen their understanding during the VR experience. Experiential learning theory was used to guide the design of the VR application and take students through the four learning modes of concrete experience, reflective observation, abstract conceptualization, and active experimentation. A focus group provided feedback on the design and user interaction of the VR experience. This paper will outline how design features and enhancements were selected based on their connection to experiential learning theory.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.260
Teacher spread0.238 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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
Published2022
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA)Same topicProblem and Project Based LearningFrench-language works237,207