The internationalization of engineering education: a tale of two countries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two international exchange programs in engineering between universities in Japan and Canada, are described in order to explain the significant benefits gained by the undergraduate and graduate students, as well as the academic staff who participate, and to highlight key principles generally followed in the design and execution of exchange programs. One notable and successful engineering exchange program is between the University of Waterloo, located in Southern Ontario, Canada, and Tottori University in Japan, while the other is between the University of Waterloo and Kyoto University in Japan. Both of these programs include foreign students taking courses for credit or audit at the host university, and, for the case of graduate students, also receiving guidance in their research. Moreover, upon completion of one academic semester in Japan, all of the undergraduate Waterloo students studying at Tottori University are employed in Japanese industry for three to four months before returning to Canada. Of paramount importance to the education of the participating undergraduate and graduate students is the opportunity to learn, by first-hand experience, the language and culture of a foreign country. In fact, one of the key findings of a survey completed by Canadian and Japanese students who took part in the exchange programs, is that living in a different culture greatly enhanced their own personal development. The addition of this international perspective to a solid education in engineering opens many doors of opportunity for exchange program alumni, who are well prepared to fully participate in the global marketplace of the 21st century, and to assist society in responsibly reaching an equitable and sustainable future.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".