MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2885641354 · doi:10.24908/pceea.v0i0.7362

INTERNATIONALLY-EDUCATED ENGINEERS’ INSIGHTS INTO THE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITIES EMBEDDED IN THE CANADIAN ENGINEERING PROFESSION

2017· article· en· W2885641354 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Marcia Friesen, Jillian SemiukCicek

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA) · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHigher Education and Employability
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
FundersUniversity of Manitoba
KeywordsLicensureConscienceEngineering ethicsProcess (computing)Work (physics)Ethical codeSocial workPublic relationsSociologyPedagogyPolitical scienceEngineeringLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Drawing from data collected as part of a larger study, this paper focusses specifically on internationally-educated engineers’ (newcomers to Canada) insights and experiences of the social role and social responsibility inherent in the Canadian engineering profession. The study participants were individuals who had completed a formal foreign credentials recognition process through a qualifications recognition program at the University of Manitoba, and who have achieved professional licensure in Manitoba. Data were collected from 23 internationally-educated engineers through long one-on-one and group interviews over a period of two years. The work uses a conceptual framework of professional practice as the development of moral conscience. The data demonstrate that through engagement with the regulatory process including right-to-title, right-to-practice, and the Code of Ethics, and through one’s day to day engineering practice, participants assimilated an understanding of the practice of professional engineering in Canada as being rooted in a professional community with explicit and stable social responsibilities.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.670
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.285 · 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.

Study designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA)Same topicHigher Education and EmployabilityFrench-language works237,207