CHARACTERIZING THE ENGINEERING EDUCATION GRADUATE STUDENT EXPERIENCE IN CANADA: DESCRIPTIVES
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract – Four Canadian Engineering Education graduate students from the Universities of Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Toronto, and Calgary are conducting a national mixed-methods research study to characterize the identity of graduate students studying engineering education in Canada. The first phase of this study comprised of the dissemination of a survey designed using McAlpine’s Identity-Trajectory framework to explore whom our engineering education graduate students are, how our graduate studies are manifest in this field, and how our academic identities are formed through the construction of our unique intellectual, institutional, and networking experiences. This paper presents select findings and descriptive analyses from these survey data. Findings show that participants in our study predominantly identify as female, come from engineering backgrounds, are over-stretched in terms of commitments, need better access to research funding and peer communities, actively present at conferences, and are sufficiently supported by their institutions and supervisors to feel that they can conduct quality research in engineering education. Noteworthy, is that the gender demographic in our study participants, which is predominantly female, is in contrast to the minority female demographic found in engineering graduate studies. Significantly, findings suggest that graduate students pursuing degrees in engineering education may be guided by a potentially unconscious positivistic approach to their research.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".