COMPARING THE EXPERIENCES OF WOMEN IN UNDERGRADUATE ENGINEERING ACROSS DIFFERENT SCHOOLS
Bibliographic record
Abstract

 A previous study by the authors that was conducted on students in accredited undergraduate engineering programs showed significant differences between men’s and women’s experiences in their programs. That previous first-stage study highlighted that the causes of Canada’s low retention of women in the field may be at least partially attributable to women’s negative experiences at the beginning of their careers, in their undergraduate education. The research done thus far by the authors was largely explorative; there is now a need to begin identifying where and when students are experiencing negativity tied to their gender. The purpose of the research herein is to get a more comprehensive understanding of how specific behaviours and practices of professors, teaching assistants, peers, and other personnel in the classroom affect students will have significant consequences for what inclusive pedagogy in engineering should look like. As a part of this, the previous pilot study was revised, expanded and distributed to four accredited engineering institutions in North America. The results of the present study reinforce authors’ previous theories and indicate that across the institutions surveyed, peers and professors made up the primary source of discouragement and intimidation against students. In addition, institutional differences uncovered in this study suggest that specific programs and initiatives at the institutions in question at least partially affect student experiences, and later their retention in the field. The authors conclude that institutions need to begin targeting peers and professors for equity education, bias eradication training, and other initiatives.
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".