AN EVALUATION OF PEDAGOGICAL METHODS FOR ENGINEERING ETHICS EDUCATION
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Canadian engineers are expected to uphold high ethical standards as part of their responsibility to the profession and society. This expectation is echoed in the CEAB graduate attributes and in the Ritual of the Calling of an Engineer [1],[2]. It is intended that students learn and develop their knowledge of engineering ethics during their undergraduate program, however, North American research in Engineering Ethics Education (EEE) has identified flaws and called into question the efficacy of the current teaching methods being used. Additionally, there is little empirical evidence available to generate any definite conclusions about the pedagogical nature or the efficacies of different EEE teaching methods. As an early phase of research on this topic, this paper presents an evaluation of literature to understand the current state of EEE in North America, including current perceptions of EEE methods and alternate models for EEE. A proposed research direction to begin identifying and understanding issues related to the teaching of engineering ethics is discussed.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.135 | 0.305 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".