ALUMNI SURVEY FOR UNIVERSITY OF MANITOBA DEPARTMENT OF BIOSYSTEMS ENGINEERING
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents the results of a survey of61 alumni from the University of Manitoba Department ofBiosystems Engineering. A three-section survey wasdeveloped to evaluate 12 attributes outlined by theCanadian Engineering Accreditation Board. The surveyrequested that alumni assess the 12 attributes in threeways: the importance of each attribute in their currentemployment, the level of preparedness they had receivedin each attribute from their education in the BiosystemsEngineering program, and the competency level requiredin each attribute by their current employment. Using gapanalysis, the level of preparedness received by BiosystemsEngineering alumni was compared with level ofcompetency required in current employment. The level ofpreparedness exceeded competency required on 10 of 12attributes; only attributes of “communication” and“impact of engineering on society and the environment”were found to be deficient using this analysis.Comparison of the importance of attributes to level ofpreparedness showed that level of preparedness ismeeting industry expectations on attributes of “knowledgebase for engineering”, “design”, “use of engineeringtools” with room for improvement on “problemanalysis”, “investigation” and most of the soft skillattributes. Interestingly, alumni who had participated onan extra-curricular team rated their preparedness on“team work” and “communication skills” lower than theoverall response even though these extra-curricularactivities provide real-life experience with theseattributes.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".