What Sets Proficient and Expert Users Apart? Results of a Computer-Aided Design Experiment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract As computer-aided design (CAD) tools have become an essential aspect of modern mechanical engineering design, the demand for CAD experts has increased significantly. The development from novice, to proficient, to expert user is of particular interest to the industrial and academic design communities. Yet little is known about the development of modeling choices, strategies, and patterns that characterize expert CAD skills; much of the past work that reports user action data is based on student or novice data. We compared the CAD modeling process across nine proficient and ten expert designers as they were tested to complete the same design task. Under identical conditions—the same time constraints in the same CAD platform and with the same task—the expert users were able to complete a larger proportion of the task with higher dimensional accuracy. While the experts were able to dissect and retrieve geometries from manufacturing drawings more efficiently than proficient users, they were also able to plan a modeling strategy that required less effort and revisions. With our experimental findings, we identify the demand for procedural knowledge-building for young engineers, with the ultimate goal of more effectively developing experts in engineering design with CAD.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".