MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1895193481 · doi:10.24908/pceea.v0i0.5799

GRADE 9/10 STUDENTS’ PERCEIVED KNOWLEDGE OF ENGINEERS AND THE ENGINEERING PROFESSION

2015· article· en· W1895193481 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Scott Compeau, David S. Strong

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA) · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEngineering Education and Curriculum Development
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPerceptionQuality (philosophy)Engineering educationWork (physics)Order (exchange)PsychologyEngineering ethicsMedical educationEngineeringEngineering managementMedicineMechanical engineeringBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An increase in student awareness of the engineering profession is needed to ensure students have the knowledge to make informed career choices, which may lead to achieving high-quality engineering graduates and diversifying the profession. One way to meet this demand may be ensure that pre-university students have sufficient knowledge of the engineering profession in order to make an informed decision in considering engineering as a possible choice for post-secondary study. The purpose of this research study is to understand the knowledge and/or perceptions that Grade 9 and Grade 10 students have about the engineering profession. While the study is a work in progress, this paper highlights an emerging trend from the early data analysis, indicating that students perceive a relationship between engineering and the skilled trades, but have difficulty distinguishing differences between the two. This relationship will be further investigated as the study progresses.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.002

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.214 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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