Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract NOTE: The first page of text has been automatically extracted and included below in lieu of an abstract Session 2560 Evaluation of Engineering Programs in Mexico L.F. Borjón, F. Martín del Campo Division of Science and Engineering Universidad Iberoamericana, Mexico city Abstract --- This work presents an overview of evaluation and accreditation for Engineering programs in Mexico under the conditions given by the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). A new system known as the Council for the Accreditation of Engineering programs (CACEI) has been created in Mexico. This council is the first organization in Mexico for evaluation and accreditation of engineering programs from an outsiders point of view. The second part of this paper deals with the efforts toward evaluation that a private university in Mexico city, Universidad Iberoamericana (UIA) has been seeking to count with high quality engineering programs. An evaluation process, based on ABET criteria, has been implemented by UIA for seven engineering programs. INTRODUCTION NAFTA was signed on December 17, 1992 by the Presidents of Mexico, USA and the prime minister of Canada. It began operation on January 1, 1994. On chapter XII, 1210.5, aspects concerning professional services are treated, NAFTA establishes that each one of the parts should elaborate procedures in order to obtain temporary licenses to engineers to operate on 1996. Multiple reunions have taken place since June 1992 with the participation of professional engineering societies, authorities from the National Society of Professional Engineers (NSPE), the National Council of Examiners and Surveying (NCEES) and ABET from the US. There has been participation from the Professional College of Civil Engineers of Mexico (CIC), Professional College of Mechanical Engineers in Mexico (CIME), National College of Chemical Engineers and Chemists in Mexico (CONIQ), and the Canadian Council of Professional Engineers. On April 21, 1993, the Professional bodies of Mexico signed and agreement to create the Mexican Committee for the International Practice of Engineering (COMPII). In this committee, the different professional colleges of Mexico participate. On June 1993, the first meeting regarding register and Practice of Engineering took place in Austin, TX. It was agreed that the creation of a Mexican accreditation system would represent an important factor for the increasing the quality of education in Mexico. The three countries signed a declaration establishing the objective of creating this system that could be similar to ABET or the Canadian system in order to count with the approval from these countries. The accreditation system implies the evaluation of engineering programs as well as educational institutions in order to guarantee that the evaluated engineering programs would comply with a set of minimum quality standards. 1996 ASEE Annual Conference Proceedings
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".