MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3001231993 · doi:10.24908/pceea.vi0.13761

THE EFFECT OF OUTREACH PROGRAMS ON INCREASING FEMALE ENROLLMENT IN ENGINEERING

2019· article· en· W3001231993 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Alyson A. Allen Bonneau, Shihong He, Tanishq Singh, Ulla Hagomer, Chirag Variawa

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA) · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBiomedical and Engineering Education
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsOutreachScience and engineeringMedical educationPoint (geometry)Engineering educationPsychologyGerontologyEngineeringMedicinePolitical scienceEngineering managementMathematicsEngineering ethics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The percentage of female undergraduate applicants and first-year student in engineering is increasing in the Faculty of Applied Science and Engineering (FASE) at the University of Toronto (UofT). Outreach programs are used to encourage high school students by gaining exposure and knowledge regarding the field of engineering. The effectiveness of these outreach programs in mitigating academic and social barriers is a key point of interest examined in the paper, specifically those catered directly to female students. 
 This research analyzes the growing number of community outreach programs offered at the University of Toronto. We examined the effect of three outreach initiatives: the DaVinci Engineering Enrichment Program (DEEP), the Girls Leadership in Engineering Experience (GLEE), and the Young Women in Engineering Symposium (YWIES). Using statistical data from the FASE outreach office and participation feedback from the events, we compared the enrollment statistics, the percentage of students who chose engineering, and what students found most useful in events. Observations prove that although the events encourage the same number of female students entering engineering, however, suggest that eliminating social barriers and stereotypes influence the increasing number of female-enrollment.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.652

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.002
GPT teacher head0.174
Teacher spread0.171 · 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

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA)Same topicBiomedical and Engineering EducationFrench-language works237,207