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

Technical Communication Instruction in Engineering Schools

2004· article· en· W2007135363 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.963
Threshold uncertainty score0.489

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

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