MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2100813593 · doi:10.24908/ijesjp.v1i1.3507

Are Engineering and Social Justice (In)commensurable? A Theoretical Exploration of Macro-Sociological Frameworks

2012· article· en· W2100813593 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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Engineering Social Justice and Peace · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCareer Development and Diversity
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersU.S. Army Corps of EngineersNational Science Foundation
KeywordsIdeologySociologySocial justiceEpistemologyFunctionalism (philosophy of mind)MacroSocial scienceEngineering ethicsPolitical scienceLawPoliticsEngineeringComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The degree to which engineering and social justice as fields of practice are (in)commensurable remains an open question. To illuminate important dimensions of that question, we explore intersections between those fields and two macro-sociological frameworks. Those theoretical frameworks—structural functionalism and social conflict—represent contrasting perspectives on how society should be organized. Specifically, we reveal conceptual alignments between structural functionalism and engineering/engineering education and between social conflict and social justice. Those alignments suggest some salient potential catalysts for tensions between engineering and social justice and provide a useful ideological mirror for reflection by all who are committed to the engineering profession and/or to social justice.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.758
Threshold uncertainty score0.380

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.268 · 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