From the fundamentals to the Praxis: Constructing a different engineering education to make our world a less risky place
Bibliographic record
Abstract
If we look to the human history we will see that, along with several marvelous achievements, technical development has given many bad fruits, either as intended outcomes (e.g., bombs and weapons) or as foreseeable or unpredictable side effects (e.g., environmental destruction and social disruption). This same history can also unveil a technology that is much less neutral, always embodying social values and, as a consequence of the chosen set of them, dealing very differently with the collateral effects, the possibility of their occurrence and their prevention. According to such understanding, many claims for resilience may be questioned when the calamity being experienced is caused by technology. Actually, in such case, the more sensible thing left to be done seem to be trying to change technique or the pattern of its development, instead of only adapting to or bearing the suffering it causes/d. Since the professional eventually in charge of technical design and implementation is the engineer, we must thus think about the formation we currently provide him/her. For, depending on the skills we are allowing or encouraging them to develop, the threat of a more risky world may be bigger or smaller. In this paper, besides undertaking and substantiating this reflection, we will also present a possible model for such an education to be achieved. It is important to highlight, however, that our approach will be a more philosophical one, based on some important authors of this area and focusing on the fundamentals of what will be discussed (e.g. technology and technical development). Moreover, our main intention is not to offer our readers a definitive and universal answer, but rather to leave them (you) with questions and the desire to search and try different solutions that could finally give the fruits we most need currently: engineers able to perform a social sensitive technical job.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 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".