MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2127859569 · doi:10.1109/fie.2007.4418029

An investigation of Canadian engineers: Exploring the impact of educational work experiences on career and mentor satisfaction

2007· article· en· W2127859569 on OpenAlexaffabout
Sandra Ingram, Irene Mikawoz, Sue Bruning

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings/Proceedings - Frontiers in Education Conference · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMentoring and Academic Development
Canadian institutionsNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWork (physics)Qualitative propertyPsychologyValue (mathematics)Medical educationJob satisfactionQualitative researchCareer developmentApplied psychologySocial psychologySociologyEngineeringComputer scienceMedicineSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 2005, a study was undertaken to collect quantitative and qualitative data on the career mobility of Canadian engineers in the province of Manitoba. Findings from the qualitative data drew attention to the value of prior work experience with their employers in enhancing women engineers' acquisition of soft skills. This paper examines the quantitative data on the impact of prior educational work experiences with their current employers in contributing to both male and female respondents' career and mentor satisfaction. Results show that prior work experience with current employers does not influence career satisfaction overall, but has some impact on mentor satisfaction. Gender differences in the data are further explored and implications drawn.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.976
Threshold uncertainty score0.171

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0110.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.262 · 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

Citations2
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings/Proceedings - Frontiers in Education ConferenceSame topicMentoring and Academic DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207