MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2903358528 · doi:10.18260/1-2--30470

Examining the Engineering Leadership Literature: Community of Practice Style

2020· article· en· W2903358528 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEngineering Education and Curriculum Development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsLeadership styleCommunity of practiceContext (archaeology)Situated learningShared leadershipInterdependenceRelevance (law)SocializationSociologyEngineering ethicsPsychologyKnowledge managementPedagogyEngineeringPublic relationsPolitical scienceComputer scienceSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Inherent to the career trajectories of professional engineers is an expectation that they learn to integrate communication, interpersonal and leadership skills into their technical knowledge base. While this process may feel smooth and natural to some, research suggests that others find it challenging and require support [1-3]. Our paper examines three bodies of literature relevant to engineering leadership learning in industry contexts: industry perspectives on the skills, traits and styles of effective engineering leaders; large-scale surveys tracking engineers' career paths and transitions; and ethnographic studies examining engineers' professional identity development. Our primary reason for doing this is to ground the next phase of our engineering leadership project in the literature. In addition to this project-specific goal, we use the paper to document the collective, interdisciplinary process we used to review the literature. We begin by identifying our search criteria and fleshing out three key themes in the literature. We then analyze the themes through a conceptual framework made up of four theoretical tensions relevant to leadership learning: leadership as a position/process; social action shaped by human agency/social structure; learning as a situated/formal endeavour; and social justice as a central/peripheral concern. After discussing the significance and limitations of our interdisciplinary literature review experiment, and highlighting a gap in the leadership learning research, we generate a list of recommendations for engineering educators, industry leaders and engineering leadership researchers.

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.

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 score0.302
Threshold uncertainty score0.322

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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.168 · 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