MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1757882711 · doi:10.24908/pceea.v0i0.4851

FROM COLLEGE TO UNIVERSITY: MOHAWK COLLEGE - McMASTER UNIVERSITY PARTNERSHIP, A SEAMLESS PATHWAY

2013· article· en· W1757882711 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Michael Piczak, Nafia Al-Mutawaly

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA) · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEngineering Education and Curriculum Development
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersMcMaster University
KeywordsMohawkBachelorGeneral partnershipHigher educationDegree programCommunity collegeEngineering educationPolitical scienceMedical educationEngineering managementEngineering ethicsLibrary scienceEngineeringMedicineComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the mid 1960s, Ontario education policy makers recognized the need for an engineering trained individual to fill the gap between high school and university graduates, namely, an engineering technologist. This gap was filled by consolidating existing institutes of technology and creating the Ontario community college system in 1967. However, clear pathways for students to progress from an Ontario college diploma program onto a university bachelor’s degree were extremely limited. In 1997, Mohawk College and McMaster University created a bachelor of technology degree partnership to offer students such an option. This paper will discuss the unique aspects of the collaboration between Mohawk College and McMaster University, with a main focus on the inter-institutional synergies which drive the partnership’s success including: shared facilities and faculty, interdisciplinary co-op placements and joint research programs.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.352
Threshold uncertainty score0.700

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0280.010
Scholarly communication0.0200.011
Open science0.0030.036
Research integrity0.0050.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0260.003

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.157
Teacher spread0.153 · 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
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

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA)Same topicEngineering Education and Curriculum DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207