Real Engineering: Space – Experiential, Community Engaged and Sustainable Learning in Space Engineering
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In many undergraduate engineering programs, sustainability and community engagement are "add-ons": The undergraduate engineering graduate attributes that address issues such as communications, the role of engineers for society and the environment, ethics, or lifelong learning, are often taught in standalone courses in otherwise packed "technical" curricula, where connections to engineering can be tenuous. Student workloads fail to represent the humane, ethical society we try to instill, with study schedules that disrupt healthy eating, sleeping, or engagement with the world. Engineering education rarely has student-centric pathways and flexible assessment to overcome systemic barriers to diverse learning. Attempts to tackle these challenges individually often prove difficult, where the issues are often intertwined. As a result, the Space Engineering program at the Lassonde School of Engineering is aiming to tackle these issues concurrently. In a first pilot run of a small slice of the new program, students developed a space mission concept to change the power dynamics around water quality in northern Canada, giving communities direct control of data to measure their water quality and quantities. The designed mission had to be implementable sustainably, with the community engaged at every stage. This concept is being developed into a full 4-year program, where students will choose a managed path through project activities that give them all the core and complementary content of a traditional space program. Students will design, build, launch and operate a CubeSat mission, with a community, every 4 years, to address a societal need in a sustainable way. This could then inspire other disciplines both in Engineering and beyond.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".