Bibliographic record
Abstract
Completed implementation Spring quarter, junior year Fall, 3rd week of quarter Fall, 10th week of quarter Winter, 3rd week of quarter Winter, 4th week of quarter Winter, 10th week of quarter Spring, 1st week of May Spring, 10th week of quarter Spring, 10th week of quarter The Senior Design Project is intended to be a capstone experience that draws on the previous three years of course work. As such, the project should be sufficient in scope and technical content to demonstrate students ’ technical competence developed during their careers at Santa Clara University. Announcements are made at the beginning of the fourth week of classes regarding the design project for the following year. Students are responsible for finding a project advisor in time to register for COEN 194. Students are encouraged to talk to faculty about potential topics for senior design projects well in advance of the registration deadline. These may be ideas that the students have, or projects suggested by faculty members. Interdisciplinary projects are encouraged; students should contact potential co-advisors early. When agreement is reached about a project, students will be given permission to register for COEN 194 with the faculty member. It is highly recommended that the project be documented at this time with at least a brief vision statement that captures the stakeholders ’ understanding of the project. We emphasize that the advisor’s role is to advise, not just grade or sign documents. Students should consult regularly with their advisor, well in advance of deadlines, to get advice and feedback about the content and quality of deliverables.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".