MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405675008 · doi:10.24908/pceea.2024.18615

Using systems thinking to understand bio-product commercialization: The chemical engineer's perspective

2024· article· en· W4405675008 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Khadija Rana, Fiona Coll, Emma R. Master, Emily B. Moore

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA) · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicBusiness Strategies and Innovation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of TorontoStrong
KeywordsCommercializationPerspective (graphical)Product (mathematics)New product developmentEngineering ethicsEngineeringSystems thinkingBiochemical engineeringManagement scienceComputer scienceBusinessArtificial intelligenceMathematicsMarketing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Graduate students in bioengineering engage stakeholders outside of the academic context on complex problems concerning Canada’s circular bio-economy. Clearer ways to communicate their work’s impact would be beneficial. Systems thinking affords a holistic awareness of influence that can be shared within teams. We introduce approaches for systems thinking to students at a 3-hour extracurricular workshop to explore their research impact. Participants illustrated bio-product commercialization using digital network maps and physical causal loop diagrams in teams of 3-8 people. Volunteer observers recorded notes about student engagement and thinking at a post-workshop reflection that is reported in this paper. A shared understanding was observed in the room when teams independently arrived at similar maps, highlighting technology-agnostic

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.932
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.210 · 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.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA)Same topicBusiness Strategies and InnovationFrench-language works237,207