MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Art-Inspired Pedagogies in Engineering Education - Using Comics, VR/AR, Gaming, and Music in Engineering Education

2024· article· en· W4401612806 on OpenAlexaff
Kai Zhuang, Dimpho Radebe, Mojgan Jadidi

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInnovative Educational Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComicsEngineering educationComputer scienceMultimediaVirtual realityHuman–computer interactionEngineeringEngineering managementArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In recent years, there is growing recognition in engineering education that creative, humanistic, and transferable skills such as emotional intelligence, ethical leadership, and teamwork, are essential to students' success, thriving, and contribution in university and beyond (Jarrahi et al., 2023;Lappalainen, 2015;Rottmann et al., 2015; World Economic Forum, 2020).However, most engineering students are used to rigorous curriculums that emphasize technical development, with little opportunity to experience and explore creative and humanistic subjects and to develop ethically and holistically (Cech & Sherick, 2015;Riley, 2008).Moreover, many engineering students who are used to highly reductionist and analytical thinking find it difficult to engage with "softer" learning and may experience lowered motivation in these subjects (Badenhorst et al., 2020).Underlying these challenges is a cultural belief within engineering that sees the rigour and rationality of math and science being superior to the creativity and emotionality of arts and humanities (Riley, 2017;Wisnioski, 2015).

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)0.001
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: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0000.003
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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.368
Teacher spread0.320 · 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
GenreOther

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 topicInnovative Educational TechniquesFrench-language works237,207