Recognition of substantial equivalence of engineering competence: the Canada—France mutual recognition agreement
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
Recognition at the full professional level of engineers coming from two different countries with totally different systems is a very difficult task. However, in the context of globalization of all human activities, particularly engineering services, it is essential that well-developed countries take very serious efforts using an open-minded approach to establish the parameters that will permit the ultimate objective of international recognition to be achieved. While there are many ways to move toward this objective, one recognized method of making very important steps is certainly the signature of mutual recognition agreements by major players in the trade of engineering services. In this context, this paper presents the features of a bilateral agreement that has been signed between France and Canada for the recognition of engineers at the full professional level from both countries. This agreement is the first of its kind for Canada. Many features of the agreement are worthy of note for others trying to identify the parameters to achieve an agreement between two countries having very different systems. How this success was achieved is explained, giving full attention to those factors that contributed to the conclusion of this agreement.
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 | 0.002 | 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 it