DEFINING “DUTY TO THE PUBLIC” WITHIN CANADIAN ENGINEERING PROFESSIONAL CODES OF ETHICS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
What does is it mean for an engineer to uphold their “duty to the public” [1]? The reality is that each person may have a unique interpretation of the concept of an engineer’s responsibility to thepublic based upon their unique experiences, education, values, and beliefs. When considering the concept of an engineer’s “Duty to the Public” within the realm ofprofessional engineering ethics codes, there exists a need for a more universal understanding of this concept in order to ensure ethical practice [2]. This need is particularly critical in terms of environmental responsibility within engineering practice as currently there is minimal ethical framework within Canadian professional engineering ethics codes relating to how to act in the best interest of the public with respect to environmental ethical dilemmas [1] [3]. This paper provides a literature review and proposes a multi-perspective, mixed methods research study to learn more about how individuals interpret the concept of an engineer’s “Duty to the Public”, and the role of environmental responsibility within this concept. By gaining a better understanding of thesimilarities and variances of how stakeholders interpret engineers’ responsibility to the public, it will be possible to identify whether current professional engineering ethics codes are fulfilling their objectives, and if not, to suggest how such codes and Engineering Ethics Education (EEE) might be adapted in future to better address the needs of the public.
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 | 0.034 | 0.061 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.036 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".