Cultivating High School Leaders through Engineering and Science
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Engineering and leadership go hand in hand for many within the engineering profession and throughout undergraduate studies. Students are challenged to work in teams, self-assign tasks, manage team members, set deadlines and see projects to completion. The Waterloo engineering Catalyst High School Summer Leadership Program (Catalyst) aligns specifically with the engineering knowledge base, problem analysis, investigation, design, lifelong learning and communication outcomes outlined by the Canadian Engineering Accreditation Board (CEAB). Catalyst was developed to link engineering problem solving and design with leadership skills.Catalyst students are engaged to develop both soft and hard skills in an effort to display the multitude of connections, benefits and opportunities available to students entering their undergraduate studies. More and more entrepreneurship, design and effective group leadership are all becoming essential traits and skills for students entering the workforce as well for those taking the leap to dream, market, build and succeed with their own ideas or products.Over the past three years, the summer leadership program has grown through trial, feedback and collaborative brainstorming to offer a four-week program that focuses on leadership skills, design, research exposure and entrepreneurship. Through hands-on design thinking and problem solving projects, entrepreneurial group study and by offering leadership experience in a controlled setting a new type of high school student emerges. One who is prepared, excited and inspired to get involved, try, fail and challenge themselves and their peers to create change and solve problems facing their generation.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".