MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2127513912 · doi:10.24908/pceea.v0i0.3849

IS ENGINEERING EDUCATION DELIVERING WHAT INDUSTRY REQUIRES

2011· article· en· W2127513912 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Elizabeth May, David S. Strong

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA) · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEngineering Education and Curriculum Development
Canadian institutionsQueen's UniversityNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCurriculumConstruct (python library)Engineering educationPlan (archaeology)Health systems engineeringEngineering managementEngineeringField (mathematics)Engineering design processEngineering ethicsComputer sciencePedagogyPsychologyMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Engineering graduates from the current Canadian university system leave school expecting to be well-equipped for engineering practice. After years of intense study, these bright and eager engineering graduates plan to design cars, construct bridges, and develop computer systems. However, for some time, surveys have suggested that employers find engineering graduates to be weak in the field of engineering design, innovation, communication, and associated professional skills. It is not likely that this is the fault of the student, but one may question whether design and professional skills requirements in engineering curricula are adequate [1]. Industry feedback suggests that changes are required in Canadian engineering education.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.990
Threshold uncertainty score0.116

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.007
Scholarly communication0.0090.006
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0040.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0350.011

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.191
Teacher spread0.182 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations46
Published2011
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA)Same topicEngineering Education and Curriculum DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207