MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1566875129

THE FUTURE OF ENGINEERING: A STUDY OF THE GENDER BIAS

2007· article· en· W1566875129 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Lisa Anderson, Kimberley Gilbride

Bibliographic record

VenueMcGill Journal of Education (Online) · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCareer Development and Diversity
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOutreachEngineering educationField (mathematics)Medical educationPsychologyMathematics educationEngineeringPedagogyMedicineEngineering managementPolitical scienceMathematics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Women are under-represented in the engineering field. Although more than 50% of Canadian university students are female, they represent less than 25% of students enrolled nationally in engineering programs. Our study found that female high school students are as aware of engineering as a discipline as their male counterparts but are significantly less interested in pursuing a career in the field. Knowledge about engineering was correlated to having an engineer in the family but not to the type of schooling (co-educa- tional vs. all-girls) the girls received. Our study also shows that our high school outreach program, Discover Engineering, has a positive effect on the interest of students, particularly female students, to consider engineering careers.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.155
Threshold uncertainty score0.205

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.078
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.252 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations20
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMcGill Journal of Education (Online)Same topicCareer Development and DiversityFrench-language works237,207