A self-reflective design study of three visio and visio-haptic artifacts for use in mechanical engineering design education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over generations, engineering faculty qualifications transitioned from practice to scientific theory basis, and engineering schools progressively shifted responsibility for instructing elements of practical design to industry. The result: a progressive erosion of practical design knowledge (design esoterica) in faculties and industry. Tolerancing based on ASME B4.2 Fits is one element of eroded mechanical engineering design esoterica and is now poorly understood in academe and industry. As a result, students and early-career mechanical design engineers are challenged to select appropriate Fit-types, and therefore to apply appropriate tolerances to their designs. Though unquantified, this leads to elevated industry costs associated with manufacturing and service. With thirty years in mechanical engineering design, over twenty years in the application and instruction of geometric dimensioning and tolerancing (GD&T) in industry, and six years instructing GD&T at the University of Manitoba, the author of this study has observed a general absence of tolerancing knowledge in industrial and academic environs. Recognizing the challenges of learning and teaching mechanical design esoterica in general, and dimensional tolerancing in particular, the author proposes a collection of artifacts as a first step in reintroducing, into mechanical engineering design, a functional understanding of tolerances, and tolerance magnitudes. Three visio and visio-haptic artifacts are designed for use in developing a cognizance of the clearance Fit-classes and the micron-scale tolerances associated with them. The artifact designs are based in the mechanical engineering design experience of the researcher. A qualitative self-study accompanies the engineering design study of the artifacts. A rhetorical Voice of a Design Companion is invoked as anecdotalist to convey the researcher’s design thinking, and to explore the evolution thereof. The scope of the engineering design study is limited to ideation, concepting, and final design. Fabrication and evaluations of the artifacts are contemplated as future steps.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".