MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2759731971 · doi:10.18260/1-2--7698

Graduation In Engineering Related To Personality Type And Gender

2024· article· en· W2759731971 on OpenAlexaffabout
P. Rosati

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEngineering Education and Pedagogy
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGraduation (instrument)PersonalityClass (philosophy)FeelingEngineering educationFeature engineeringGraduate studentsPsychologyExtraversion and introversionComputer scienceMathematics educationSocial psychologyBig Five personality traitsPedagogyArtificial intelligenceEngineeringEngineering management

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) was completed by most students (n=1865) entering the University of Western Ontario (UWO) engineering program during the years 1987-1993 and has provided a stable personality profile of the engineering entry class.The personality type of this entry class of Canadian engineering students shows cross-cultural differences from similar data for American students.The UWO entry class are also significantly I_TJ (introverted, thinking and judging) in comparison with other Canadian first-year students and, additionally, the UWO engineering program graduates an even larger proportion of students with these same I_TJ preferences.On the other hand, E_FP (extraverted, feeling and perceptive) types are underrepresented in the entry class yet feature significantly both in the group of students who withdraw after or during first year and also in the group who transfer out of engineering and graduate in other non-engineering disciplines.The engineering profession would certainly benefit from a larger proportion of E_FP types who by nature adapt well to change, enjoy variety and action, are interested in people and are good communicators!In general those personality type trends which are statistically significant are those for the total group (1865) or for the male students (1601) rather than for the smaller group (264) of female students.However the female engineering students although they are significantly more ENFJ than the male engineering students both in comparing the entry groups and in comparing the engineering graduate groups are nevertheless at least equally successful (68%) as the males (56%) in graduating from the engineering program.This paper highlights the main connections between personality type and progress of students through the engineering program in terms of retention, choice of engineering discipline and engineering graduation and compares the data for male and female students.

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 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 score0.094
Threshold uncertainty score0.247

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.262 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEngineering Education and PedagogyFrench-language works237,207