The co-operative education work term: A comparison of expectations and outcomes for international engineering graduates in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The completion of a co-operative education work term allows students to reflect on how their work experience aligned with their initial expectations. Such an opportunity presented itself within a larger, exploratory study examining the perceptions of international engineering graduates (immigrant engineers) on their participation in a university co-op education program as part of an alternative pathway for professional engineering licensing. The pathway combines an eight-month academic term with a four-month, paid work term. Previous research has indicated the potential for co-op education programs to support the integration of women and other underrepresented groups into the engineering profession by developing soft skills largely through positive mentoring and networking experiences. The potential for the co-op placement to offer similar advantages for international engineering graduates was explored in this study. Qualitative data were collected through focus group sessions with students and employers, co-op work term reports, and program documents. Findings indicate the value to international engineering graduates of the cooperative work term in simultaneously developing technical and cultural competencies including mentoring and networking. This study highlights the potential of the co-op work term to contribute human, cultural and social capital essential to the integration of international engineering graduates into the Canadian engineering profession.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".