Public Stewards or Hired Guns?: An Inquiry into Engineering Education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The world is facing converging crises of overpopulation and urbanization, resource depletion and globalwarming, political tension and unrest. Often, we call upon engineers, as technical experts, to addressthese issues. Engineers are allotted a large amount of decision‐making influence and power based ontheir assumed knowledge and skill sets. However, there is perhaps a danger in giving influence toindividuals with a limited understanding of social, political and environmental issues. In the words of Donna Riley, “The profession of engineering…has historically served the status quo, feeding an ever‐expanding materialistic and militaristic culture, remaining relatively unresponsive to public concerns, and without significant pressure for change from within” (Riley, 2008). This inquiry seeks to ask: “Are engineers truly prepared to tackle today’s contemporary issues?” by exploring the nature of the engineering industry in the 21st century, engineering education broadly, and the Applied Science Curriculum at Queen’s University specifically. It will draw on both independent research and focus groups with Applied Science students. Particular themes which will be explored include the engineering design process, the understanding of power relationships and the need for interdisciplinarity.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".