MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403764215 · doi:10.24908/pceea.2023.17104

Inquiry-based learning: a student-centric approach to engaging students in sustainability and life cycle thinking

2024· article· en· W4403764215 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Monika Mikhail, Christine Moresoli

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA) · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSustainability in Higher Education
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLearning cycleSustainabilityMathematics educationCritical thinkingPsychologyStudent engagementActive learning (machine learning)PedagogyComputer scienceArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The increasingly volatile, complex, ambiguous and uncertain (VUCA) nature of the world has been recognized by business leaders and others. Experiential learning offers multiple opportunities for students to actively engage in their learning and spark their interest and motivation to address complex societal problems. Inquiry-Based Learning (IBL) is a student-centric experiential learning method. This paper describes a proposed application of IBL based on a past incident, the collapse of a garment factory in 2013. In this proposed application, students will formulate and refine an inquiry question, and collect and analyze information focusing on the role, responsibilities and decisions made by the various stakeholders. Students will also reflect on the life cycle of a consumer product and the implications of a linear economy and supply chain perspective and their social dimensions. This analysis will be guided by the five phases of IBL. Such an approach is suitable for all types of engineering disciplines and levels.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.039

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.006
Scholarly communication0.0090.004
Open science0.0030.009
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.291 · 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

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA)Same topicSustainability in Higher EducationFrench-language works237,207