MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Early Work Experience and Engineering: Evidence from Random Assignment to Experiential Education

2019· article· en· W2965461568 on OpenAlexaff
Kevin Boudreau, Matt Marx

Bibliographic record

VenueAcademy of Management Proceedings · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicLabor market dynamics and wage inequality
Canadian institutionsQuest University Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWork (physics)Engineering educationExperiential learningPersistence (discontinuity)PsychologyWork experienceJob marketMedical educationEngineeringMathematics educationEngineering managementMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We investigate the effects that early exposure to professional work experience has on 2,243 Engineering undergraduates from a top-40 US program. Individuals were randomly assigned to full-time professional work terms in their second year of undergraduate studies or, later, in their third year. Earlier work exposure promotes persistence in Engineering fields in terms of a) completing more Engineering courses during college b) continuing on to graduate training in Engineering c) among top students, taking their first job in Engineering. We find no evidence that the effect of early work exposure on persistence in Engineering can be explained by differences in academic performance or advance access to the labor market. Rather, experiencing an (ungraded) work term earlier, when fewer educational investments have been sunk, facilitates experimentation and adjustment as students with earlier work exposure switch more often to different majors within 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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.056
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.063

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.056
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.239
Teacher spread0.218 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAcademy of Management Proceedings→Same topicLabor market dynamics and wage inequality→French-language works237,207→