MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2007135363 · doi:10.1177/1050651904267068

Technical Communication Instruction in Engineering Schools

2004· article· en· W2007135363 on OpenAlexaffabout
Laura Reave

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Business and Technical Communication · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEngineering Education and Curriculum Development
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSituatedTechnical communicationCoachingCurriculumEngineering educationMathematics educationPedagogyComputer scienceMedical educationPsychologyEngineeringEngineering managementMedicineElectrical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This survey of 73 top-ranked U.S. and Canadian engineering schools examines initiatives that engineering schools are taking to improve communication instruction for their students. The survey reveals that 50% of the U.S. schools and 80% of the Canadian schools require a course in technical communication. About 33% of the schools utilize some form of integrated communication instruction, and another 33% offer elective courses in communication. Just 10 schools have created engineering communication centers to provide additional individualized coaching and feedback for their students. The most comprehensive preparation that engineering schools provide is a communication-across-the-curriculum approach that combines these instructional methods to offer concentrated instruction, continual practice, situated learning, and individualized feedback.

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)0.006
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.199
Threshold uncertainty score0.396

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0030.000
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.220
Teacher spread0.212 · 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
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

Citations118
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Business and Technical CommunicationSame topicEngineering Education and Curriculum DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207