MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2886582624 · doi:10.24908/pceea.v0i0.7359

IMAGES OF THE FUTURE: GENDER AND PORTRAYALS OF FACULTY AND INDUSTRY MEMBERS IN CANADIAN ENGINEERING SCHOOL RECRUITMENT MATERIALS

2017· article· en· W2886582624 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Agnes D’Entremont, Kerry Greer, Katherine Lyon

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA) · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicDesign Education and Practice
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContext (archaeology)Representation (politics)SuspectPopulationPsychologyPublic relationsMedical educationSociologyPolitical scienceMedicineHistoryLawDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Engineering remains a male-dominated profession, despite efforts toward change. It is possible that the images used in undergraduate recruitment materials could influence how an individual might perceive their “fit” within engineering. We considered both the representation and context of individuals shown in images and videos collected from 18 Canadian English-language engineering schools, using content analysis. In this paper, we focus on individuals coded as either faculty or industry members, as they illustrate the future possibilities of a career in engineering in this material. We found an overrepresentation of women faculty and women industry members compared to their population percentages at the schools (faculty) and in the profession (industry). We also found that women professionals of both types were under-represented among those professionals wearing business attire, and women industry members were over-represented among those industry members whose names and credentials were given, in both the images and videos. We encountered a similar overall over-representation of women among student imagery, and suspect that it is the result of intentionally highlighting women within the schools and the field of engineering. However, we believethat context, as well as presence, matters. The underrepresentation of women in some cases is worth examining for the message it may send about the future prospects of a student considering engineering.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.994
Threshold uncertainty score0.518

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.238 · 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.

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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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