MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3002978823 · doi:10.24908/pceea.vi0.13811

INSTILLING ENGINEERING STUDENTS WITH SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY: TECHNOLOGICAL STEWARDSHIP

2019· article· en· W3002978823 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Katherina V. Tarnai-Lokhorst

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA) · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBiomedical and Engineering Education
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStewardship (theology)ObligationMandateSocial responsibilityEngineering ethicsEngineeringEngineering educationPublic relationsEngineering managementPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Stewards of the implementation of technology in society, engineers regularly balance innovative design with their primary mandate: protection of the public interest. As technological stewardship achieves higher priorities within the requirements of engineering education, students must learn to acknowledge their obligation to society by deeply reflecting on the ethical implications of engineering design. Mech410T– Engineering in Society: Technological Stewardship is a new, fully-online course that guides students through a comprehensive assessment of this obligation using case study analyses, small group discussions, and team-based, project-based learning. The module activities consist of assigned readings; video recordings of the topic overview and a series of interviews with key partners within the engineering community, including practitioners, stakeholders and regulators; module quizzes; discussion posts; and a term paper, researched and written as a team.

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)0.000
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 score0.137
Threshold uncertainty score0.879

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.190
Teacher spread0.186 · 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 routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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