MENTORSHIP: LINKING INDUSTRY PROFESSIONALS WITH TOMORROW’S ENGINEERS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In an effort to work towards the 30 by 30 goalestablished by Engineers Canada [1], the Committee forIncreasing the Participation of Women in Engineering(CIPWIE), an operating committee of EngineersGeoscientists Manitoba, developed a MentorshipProgram aimed at providing female engineering studentswith an opportunity to connect with female professionalengineers to help provide a vision of what a career inengineering might look like. The CIPWIE MentorshipProgram paired 35 female engineering students (betweentheir second and fifth year of studies) with 33 femaleprofessional engineers through both a formal (eventdriven)and informal program carried out over the2015/16 academic year. Surveys were used throughoutthe pilot program to participant feedback. Results of thesesurveys indicate that the program was a success with over90% of participants indicating that they would reapply tothe program in future years.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.017 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.031 | 0.006 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".