MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405674938 · doi:10.24908/pceea.2024.18624

Fostering Holistic Thinking: Design of an Interdisciplinary Systems-Thinking Course

2024· article· en· W4405674938 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Kush Bubbar, Renato Rodrigues, Jeremy B. Kimball, Ola Tjörnbo

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA) · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicComplex Systems and Decision Making
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCourse (navigation)Design thinkingSystems thinkingEngineering ethicsMathematics educationCritical thinkingPsychologyPedagogySociologyEngineeringComputer scienceHuman–computer interactionArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In an era dominated by intricate challenges, navigating complex systems and wicked problems is paramount for the engineering discipline's evolution. This necessity beckons a departure from conventional educational paradigms towards a holistic and transdisciplinary pedagogical approach. This paper delineates the development of a systems-thinking course tailored to instill such competencies. Grounded in a robust framework of learning outcomes, the course is strategically crafted to facilitate a comprehensive examination of complex systems and the nuanced nature of wicked problems. The curriculum, rich in experiential learning opportunities, weaves together practical exercises, theoretical discussions, and collaborative project work, enabling students to cultivate a deep, holistic understanding of the challenges at the intersection of political, environmental, social, technological, economic, and legal dimensions. By employing a variety of system-mapping techniques, along with primary and secondary research methods, and honing effective communication skills, students are equipped to confront real-world issues with enhanced analytical and critical thinking capabilities.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.094
GPT teacher head0.375
Teacher spread0.281 · 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
GenreMethods

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 routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA)Same topicComplex Systems and Decision MakingFrench-language works237,207