MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2909738758 · doi:10.24908/pceea.v0i0.13079

A Systematic Review of Canadian Engineering Education Research 2004-2017

2018· review· en· W2909738758 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.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA) · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEngineering Education and Curriculum Development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersSuncor Energy Incorporated
KeywordsFoundation (evidence)Engineering ethicsEngineering educationScience and engineeringSystematic reviewPolitical scienceEngineeringEngineering managementMEDLINE

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper provides a systematic review ofengineering education research papers from theC2E2/CDEN/CEEA-ACEG-ACEG series of conferencesfrom 2004 to the present. The purpose of the review is totrack the evolution of engineering education across the“engineering practice” and “engineeringresearch/theory” spectrum. The analysis is based on theNational Science Foundation-funded RREE committee’sproposed four levels of rigor in inquiry about teachingand learning. The results of the review show that although there is a trend towards an increasing proportion of theory-oriented papers, practice-oriented papers still dominate

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.403
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.263 · 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