MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391615246 · doi:10.18260/1-2--43993

Protein Molecules as Robotic Mechanisms: An Interdisciplinary Project-Based Learning Experience at the Intersection of Biochemistry and Robotics

2024· article· en· W4391615246 on OpenAlexaff
Alireza Mohammadi, Destin W. Heilman

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicModular Robots and Swarm Intelligence
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersDivision of Civil, Mechanical and Manufacturing InnovationUniversity of Michigan-DearbornSenter for Autonome Marine Operasjoner og SystemerNational Science Foundation
KeywordsIntersection (aeronautics)RoboticsArtificial intelligenceRobotComputer scienceHuman–computer interactionEngineeringAerospace engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Increasingly, instructors are challenged by growing complexity in knowledge domains and the need to prepare students with specific skills relevant to an uncertain future. The speed of technological advance and shifting societal conditions make this ever more arduous. One of the promises of project-based learning (PBL) is to cultivate many of the most important student qualities for facing such an uncertain world by exposing them to cross disciplinary problems. Indeed, providing the students with a plethora of perspectives from seemingly unrelated fields enhances their creative problem solving skills and enables them to better adapt to complex scenarios. This paper describes a multidisciplinary effort between faculty from the Electrical and Computer Engineering department at the University of Michigan-Dearborn and the Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry at the Worcester Polytechnic Institute (WPI). The project involved students modeling protein folding as a robotic mechanism and studying the problems associated with this complex system from multiple perspectives. After providing a brief technical background about the robotics-based approaches to the problem of protein folding/unfolding, this paper elaborates on the pedagogical elements of the project. Assessment results highlight the student learning outcomes and perspectives on this interdisciplinary, and intercollegiate project-based learning endeavor. The authors comment on challenges and opportunities associated with such PBL efforts and provide suggestions for disseminating these types of impactful PBL initiatives.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.601
Threshold uncertainty score0.392

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.261 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicModular Robots and Swarm IntelligenceFrench-language works237,207