MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2616513743 · doi:10.18260/1-2--22016

Teaching Students to be Technology Innovators: Examining Approaches and Identifying Competencies

2020· article· en· W2616513743 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Nathalie Duval‐Couetil, Michael Dyrenfurth

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEngineering Education and Curriculum Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersFundación Para La Innovación Y La Prospectiva En Salud En EspañaInternational Council for Canadian StudiesPurdue UniversityAmerican Society for Engineering Education
KeywordsCommercializationRevenueInnovation managementKnowledge managementEntrepreneurshipBusinessMarketingComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To prepare students for a more competitive global economy, universities are increasingly promoting programs and courses that focus on innovation.Given their early stages of development, limited information about best practices, target competencies or desired outcomes is readily available.This exploratory study examines the nature of educational programs that offer an educational credential focused on innovation.The purpose is to understand their structure, content, and value they propose to students by examining program descriptions and required courses.It explores what teaching innovation means at a program-level and identifies where programs are situated within the spectrum of topics that characterize innovation education.The results can be useful in the development of core competencies related to innovation and understanding approaches to teaching it.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.004
Scholarly communication0.0080.005
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.193 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

Citations9
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEngineering Education and Curriculum DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207