MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3001186159 · doi:10.24908/pceea.vi0.13740

ADDRESSING DIVERSITY AND GENDER ISSUES IN A CORNERSTONE DESIGN COURSE

2019· article· en· W3001186159 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Sarah R. Nicholson, Patrick Neumann, Mary F. Stewart, Filippo A. Salustri

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA) · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEngineering Education and Curriculum Development
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCornerstoneDiversity (politics)DemographicsInclusion (mineral)Gender diversityContext (archaeology)Equity (law)Focus groupPsychologyGender equityQualitative researchMedical educationSocial psychologyGender studiesSociologyMedicinePolitical scienceSocial scienceManagementGeographyDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the cornerstone engineering design course for Mechanical and Industrial Engineering undergraduates at Ryerson University, students’ design approaches were being negatively affected by gender and other biases. Therefore, the course was modified to encourage students to explore these biases, with an initial emphasis on gender so that they may design with a fuller sense of women’s issues. This novel endeavour aimed to change the course’s culture via awareness, and by connecting equity, diversity, and inclusion to an engineering context. Qualitative analysis of student reports before and after these modifications showed that the intervention led to user groups that more closely matched actual demographics and included a higher number of women, LGBTQ, and elderly Personas than before. Furthermore, the qualitative descriptions showed less of a skewed tendency to attribute positive characteristics to men and negative characteristics to women after the course modifications were implemented. Student surveys indicated that there was a potential cultural shift within the course, and a broadening of student focus to include equity, diversity, and inclusion when undertaking an engineering design project.

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 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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.078
Threshold uncertainty score0.585

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.206 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations2
Published2019
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA)Same topicEngineering Education and Curriculum DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207