EXAMINING FOURTH YEAR MECHANICAL ENGINEERING STUDENT PERCEPTIONS OF GRADUATE ATTRIBUTE COMPETENCIES: YEAR THREE
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper describes the third year of amixed methods explanatory case study to examine fourthyear engineering student perceptions of the CEABgraduate attributes in the Mechanical Engineeringprogram using a student exit survey and student focusgroup interviews. The purpose of this paper is to reportstudents’ perceptions of their graduate attributecompetency levels and the program’s graduate attributestrengths and weaknesses in a three-year continuum,supporting the findings with the data from three studentfocus group interviews. This investigation offers thefaculty an understanding of its student engineeringstakeholders’ perceptions of how the CEAB graduateattributes are manifest in the Mechanical Engineeringprogram. It will be used to provide feedback atinstructor, program and faculty levels as the Universityof Manitoba’s Faculty of Engineering furthers its effortstowards achieving a continuous cycle of improvement
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 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 it