MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2614467873 · doi:10.18260/1-2--170

Benchmarking International Industrial Engineering Programs

2020· article· en· W2614467873 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEngineering Education and Curriculum Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBenchmarkingAccreditationStandardizationCurriculumInclusion (mineral)Order (exchange)Engineering educationEngineering managementPolitical scienceEngineeringBusinessComputer scienceEconomic growthMarketingSociologyEconomicsFinanceSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract NOTE: The first page of text has been automatically extracted and included below in lieu of an abstract Benchmarking International IE Programs Introduction Fraser6 compared the 101 ABET accredited industrial engineering programs by location, size, and other descriptors, as well as by the inclusion of different courses in the curricula. Except for two programs in Puerto Rico, all these programs are in the United States. In this paper, we extend that comparison to include industrial engineering programs in other countries in order to find ideas that US programs (and programs in other countries that use the US model) should consider for adoption from IE programs outside the US. We found differences in total number of credit hours and in number of years required for the IE degree, in the amount of general education included in the degree, and in the strength of ties to industry. We noted trends toward standardization of degrees in certain countries and regions and toward international links among programs. We make two recommendations related to partners: IE programs should seek partnerships with mechanical engineering and with business programs, and IE programs should seek partners with universities in other countries. Methods for finding IE programs in other countries We compiled a list of programs to be examined by drawing from the following sources. Washington Accord Programs. The Washington Accord, signed in 1989, is an agreement among engineering accrediting bodies in Australia, Canada, Ireland, Hong Kong, New Zealand, South Africa, United Kingdom, and the United States. The agreement “recognizes the substantial equivalency of programs accredited by those bodies, and recommends that graduates of accredited programs in any of the signatory countries be recognized by the other countries as having met the academic requirements for entry to the practice of engineering.” See www.washingtonaccord.org. •Institution of Engineers Australia, www.ieaust.org.au •Canadian Council of Professional Engineers, www.ccpe.ca •The Hong Kong Institution of Engineers, www.hkie.org.hk •Engineers Ireland, www.iei.ie •Japan Accrediting Board for Engineering Education, www.jabee.org •Institution of Professional Engineers New Zealand •Engineering Council of South Africa, www.ecsa.co.za •Engineering Council United Kingdom (ECUK), www.engc.org.uk The following are not members of the Washington Accord, but were useful websites: •ASIIN (Germany), www.asiin.de •CACEI (Mexico), Consejo de Acreditacion de la Ensenanza de la Ingenieria, www.cacei.org.

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.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.402
Threshold uncertainty score0.423

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.197
Teacher spread0.172 · 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