HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS’ VIEWS ON ENGINEERS CANADA’S DEFINITION OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING WORK
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The breadth of the engineering profession is illustrated by Engineers Canada’s (EC) recognition of over 120 accredited engineering programs across the country. Arguably, the work of a professional engineer spans over an even larger scope. However, synthesizing a description of engineering work that encompasses all aspects of the profession is extremely difficult. Applicants to engineering programs in Canadian universities require high standing in specific course pre-requisites. In order to make an informed decision with regard to engineering as a possible career path, it is critical that students clearly understand the engineering profession. The purpose of this paper is to describe how Grade 9/10 students’ perceptions of engineering work compares to EC’s description, based on the outcomes of a research study involving a questionnaire and interviews. The findings show that the emerging categories from these students’ descriptions of engineering work that aligns with EC’s description, involves design (42.3%) and helping people or the environment (16.5%).
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 | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".