BLURRING THE LINE BETWEEN FOR-CREDIT CURRICULAR AND NOT-FOR-CREDIT EXTRACURRICULAR ENINGEERING LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Engineering student experience is highly influenced by the interplay between curricular and extracurricular learning environments on campus. Bridging between the two spaces, Engineers Without Borders (EWB) Canada builds on curricular content with extracurricular opportunities which not only reinforce leadership and communications skills, but also focus on complexity and systems thinking, globalization trends,and foundational attitudes of service to society. In recent years, EWB has been working collaboratively with specific engineering faculties in an attempt to bring these attributes to the classroom. This paper examines the efficacy of these opportunities, which blur the line between for-credit engineering curricular interactions and not-for-credit extracurricular engineering focused activities. Drawing on examples from institutions that have implemented credit for extracurricular activities andbuilding on the 2013 Global Engineering Symposium’s engineering education focused discussions at the Engineers Without Borders Canada annual national conference in Calgary, Alberta, we highlight the potential for the concept from the perspective of the student and the faculty.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".