MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1876280227 · doi:10.18740/s49c73

Engineering Barriers: An Empirical Investigation into the Mechanics of Downward Mobility.

2009· article· en· W1876280227 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueSocialist studies · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHigher Education Learning Practices
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImmigrationProcess (computing)Work (physics)EthnographyPosition (finance)Engineering ethicsWork in processPublic relationsSocial ontologySociologyEngineeringPolitical scienceBusinessComputer scienceOperations managementLawMechanical engineeringEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper explores the regulation of professional engineering and how the licensing process itself impacts the labour market position of immigrant engineers. Guided by the social ontology and method of inquiry of institutional ethnography, this paper provides a map of the licensing process for engineering in Ontario and shows how immigrant engineers are constructed as exceptions to the process, despite the fact that immigrant engineers outnumber Ontario engineering graduates. Having to first go though individualized academic and work experience assessments, they also require one year Canadian work experience. Research has shown that it is difficult for immigrant engineers to successfully complete the licensing process. This paper details the administrative work processes that cause delays and difficulties for immigrant engineers, and discusses the labour market implications of not having a professional licence.

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.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.309
Threshold uncertainty score0.782

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.435
Teacher spread0.365 · 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