PROMOTING ENTREPRENEURIAL PRACTICE BY CRAMMING A PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OVER A WEEKEND
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As the definition of the engineering profession continues to witness a disruptive transformation in the labour market, engineering schools are beginning to recognize the need to facilitate a new approach to education. Such a disruption has lead to the explosion of entrepreneurship education within the boarders of engineering schools in attempt to generate the talent and skills of the future engineer. 
 There is however a gap – engineering schools were never designed to deliver entrepreneurship education. Success in this endeavour relies on a new approach to teaching; one that is founded in a group-based, experiential learning environment. At the University of New Brunswick, entrepreneurship education is a core element offered to all our engineering students.
 The following article proposes the CRAM – a two day hackathon designed to introduce students to a cohesion of contemporary entrepreneurship practices to accelerate group formation and acquire entrepreneurship skill sets using an inductive teaching approach. The delivery of the CRAM is discussed in detail, along with feedback from the student participants.
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".