MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3035911437 · doi:10.24908/pceea.vi0.14176

“BREAKING DOWN BARRIERS”: DEVELOPMENT OF AN ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGY TO ENGINEERING TRANSFER PATHWAY IN CANADA

2020· article· en· W3035911437 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Titilope Adebola, Brian Frank, Alexandra Downie, Hannah Smith

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA) · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducation Systems and Policy
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFlexibility (engineering)Extant taxonInstitutionEngineering educationBridge (graph theory)EngineeringTechnology transferEngineering ethicsEngineering managementPolitical scienceKnowledge managementComputer scienceManagementMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

College pathways significantly improve access to engineering degrees for marginalized or underrepresented students. Although several provinces in Canada have established pathways for students wishing to move from an engineering technology diploma to an engineering degree, such as Newfoundland and Labrador, Alberta, and British Columbia, no province-wide pathway in Ontario’s higher education system exists. As a result, transfer students are faced with a myriad of challenges and limited transfer pathways due to the institution-specific and complex nature of transfer articulation agreements in Ontario. This paper reports on the development of a province-wide diploma-to-degree engineering transfer pathway in Ontario. The proposed pathway program builds upon findings from a previous qualitative research study conducted by the co-authors which highlighted key factors necessary to develop future large-scale transfer pathways. The pathway was designed with the flexibility to incorporate extant institution specific pathways, while also providing a solid foundation for the development of a pilot multi-institutional bridge program. The challenges associated with creating a streamlined transfer pathway from engineering technology to engineering are myriad, and key outcomes from this project will continue to inform the development of possible approaches to a consistent, Ontario-wide engineering transfer program.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.894
Threshold uncertainty score0.766

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0240.005
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0030.010
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.215 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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
Published2020
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA)→Same topicEducation Systems and Policy→French-language works237,207→