Engineering Entrepreneurship Teaching and Practice in the United States and 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
Innovation and entrepreneurship have become priority areas in many engineering faculties. However, there is no consensus about how best to incorporate these or what content should be included in courses. The purpose of this article is to explore how entrepreneurship is presented in an engineering context and how this compares with how it is offered in other contexts. Two empirical studies are presented. The first study examines the content of different types of entrepreneurship courses. The second study is an analysis of communications by engineers and entrepreneurs. Results of these studies show that engineers discuss and present entrepreneurship differently, both within engineering programs and in professional communications. Engineers are much more inclined to focus on engineering design, problem solving, product development, and idea generation in entrepreneurship. They are also focused on the details of the innovation and design processes and less on the entrepreneurial process itself. At the same time, there is a gap between academic entrepreneurship programs and discussions by practitioners. In practitioner discussions, the context and entrepreneurial ecosystem are much more important than they are in entrepreneurship courses and the necessity of education for entrepreneurial success is less valued.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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