MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1880771316 · doi:10.24908/pceea.v0i0.4832

DEVELOPING AN ENTREPRENEURIAL MINDSET IN ENGINEERING STUDENTS

2013· article· en· W1880771316 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Amy Hsiao

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA) · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEngineering Education and Pedagogy
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMindsetEntrepreneurshipEngineering educationCurriculumEngineering managementEngineering ethicsEngineeringManagementPedagogyPsychologyBusinessComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Developing engineers with entrepreneurial skills is becoming a valued objective for engineering faculties across the country. Entrepreneurship courses are being added to engineering curriculum, course options are being created to allow students to pursue an entrepreneurship or management track in their undergraduate engineering studies, and graduate programs are being developed in Engineering Management, as a more specific and alternative route to the Master of Business Administration (MBA). This paper presents the results of a six-year survey of engineering students who have elected to enroll in an upperclassmen Entrepreneurship course. It presents the approach that has been taken in an Engineering elective at Memorial University to develop entrepreneurially minded engineering students, and the students’ perspectives on why engineers become entrepreneurs, what entrepreneurial qualities they believe they possess, and how they have learned to evaluate entrepreneurial ideas not only on its technical merit, but organizationally and strategically.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.001
Open science0.0000.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.220 · 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
GenreOther

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

Citations9
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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