MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2168175832 · doi:10.24908/pceea.v0i0.3584

Engineering Perspectives of Grade 7 Students

2011· article· en· W2168175832 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Mary Spencer, David 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
KeywordsOutreachCurriculumEngineering educationPerspective (graphical)Variety (cybernetics)Action (physics)Work (physics)PerceptionEngineering ethicsOrder (exchange)EngineeringPedagogyPsychologyEngineering managementComputer sciencePolitical scienceMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many high school students are unable to consider engineering as an undergraduate program of study because they do not have the prerequisite courses required for university entrance. In order to provide the opportunity for capable students to pursue an engineering degree and subsequently enter the engineering profession, they must understand what engineering is prior to entering high school to enable them to select appropriate courses. The focus of this study is to understand how students in 7th grade perceive the profession of engineering in two regions across Canada. The literature suggests that action is underway in some areas of the United States in order to create awareness and encourage students to pursue an engineering program. These initiatives range from integrating engineering concepts into the K-12 curriculum to providing outreach and design challenge opportunities outside of school. Such initiatives are present in very isolated cases within Canada, however, their reach and impact is limited.In order to better understand the perspective of pre-high school students in Canada, they will be provided with a survey incorporating a variety of questions pertaining to what they understand about engineering as a profession. All questions have been structured as open ended in order to promote individualized answers from the students. Survey questions will be analyzed with NVIVO software to determine if there are common themes in the understanding and perception of engineering from the students’ perspective. Observations and emerging trends of this work in progress will be presented in the final paper.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.280
Threshold uncertainty score0.839

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.191
Teacher spread0.185 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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
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