“MEET THEM WHERE THEY’RE AT”: GATHERING INSTITUTIONAL PERSPECTIVES ON ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGY TO ENGINEERING TRANSFER IN CANADA
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents an investigation to determine the state of Canadian engineering transfer pathways and programs, how they were developed, and how to develop future large-scale transfer pathways. Technology to engineering pathways disproportionately improve access to engineering degrees for visible minorities, with some students relying on transfer as a pathway to a baccalaureate degree. However, there is no province-wide pathway in Ontario’s higher education system, so efficient transfer to engineering happens in a very a limited number of programs. To understand the system, a qualitative research study was developed that used semi-structured interviews with 15 institutions or groups with existing or attempted engineering transfer pathways. Results indicate that there are four factors differentiating existing pathways: timeline, structure, development, and scale. New partnerships should consider communication, collaboration, consideration of students and other institutions, and accreditation concerns as paramount in the success of proposed pathways, while lack of sustained institutional commitment, maintenance of programs, knowledge dissemination, and capacity may present challenges.
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 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 | 0.002 |
| 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 it