MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4308709885 · doi:10.24908/pceea.vi.15969

joys and challenges of creating a non-accredited multidisciplinary design program in a traditional engineering faculty

2022· article· en· W4308709885 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Andrew Sowinski, Patrick Dumond, David Knox, David Bruce, Jason Foster, Hanan Anis

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA) · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTechnology Assessment and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMultidisciplinary approachInternshipFlexibility (engineering)Unit (ring theory)BachelorAccreditationMedical educationStakeholderEngineering managementJob marketPresentation (obstetrics)BureaucracyEngineering ethicsEngineeringPublic relationsPsychologyManagementMedicinePolitical scienceMathematics educationWork (physics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In January 2021, a new academic unit (School of Engineering Design and Teaching Innovation) was created in the Faculty of Engineering for the first time in over 20 years. After identifying needs in the job market for programs with a focus on multidisciplinary skills, the academic unit’s first task was to develop a three-year nonaccredited program, titled “Bachelor’s of Multidisciplinary Design (Internship)”. Fundamentally, the program will include core technical expertise expected from an engineering faculty but will also offer flexibility for students to explore other interests. This type of flexibility and openness may seem daunting for first year students. Therefore, example learning paths were created based on current job market trends, with more learning paths in development. This paper focuses not only on the development of such a unique program in Canada, considering insight provided through stakeholder and focus group meetings, but also the challenges associated with submitting this program proposal through all levels of university bureaucracy, from the faculty committees through to provincial review. While there have been questions, and sometimes doubts, that such a program could be fully developed, the program is on track to pass all levels of approval and welcome its first cohort of students for the Fall 2023 term.

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)0.044
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.027
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.139
Threshold uncertainty score0.276

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0440.027
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0390.012
Scholarly communication0.0180.006
Open science0.0060.013
Research integrity0.0040.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.002

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 head0.224
Teacher spread0.202 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations3
Published2022
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA)Same topicTechnology Assessment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207