Student Expectations from an Environmental Professional Society
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Environmental engineering and science is a multidisciplinary field, and as a result, environmental engineers and scientists have traditionally been served by a broad range of professional societies. It has been recognized, however, that the discipline is a fragmented one, lacking a unified organization to meet the needs of students, faculty, and practitioners. This paper presents the results of a survey aimed at identifying the needs and expectations of students from a North American environmental professional society. The survey targeted undergraduate and graduate students whose primary academic affiliation was to a North American environmental engineering or environmental science related program. Although students can identify several positive aspects of the organizations they are currently involved with, they do not seem generally satisfied with existing student groups available to them. A large majority of survey respondents (90%) are interested in joining a North American society for environmental engineers and scientists (SSEES) and staying involved after graduation. While students expect a broad array of services from such an organization, four main ideas have been identified from the survey results: (1) networking, (2) project and “real-world ” experience, (3) targeted membership, and (4) service. Students want a nationally recognized and unifying organization that is focused solely on environmental engineering and science. They would like a professional organization to offer opportunities for participation in design or development projects and travel to real project sites to gain hands-on experience. A majority of students (75%) would like to attend a conference of all North American SSEES chapters as this is viewed as an opportunity to interact with other students, network with potential employers, and exchange with other practitioners or researchers. Finally, many students expect a North American SSEES to provide service or outreach activities where students can get involved at the local community, school, or international level. A large majority of students (90%) are also interested in remaining involved with the organization after graduation.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".