MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3181156981 · doi:10.24908/pceea.vi0.14839

ENGINEERING LEADERS RETAIN THEIR TECHNICAL IDENTITIES: LIVING THE SOCIOTECHNICAL DUALITY

2021· article· en· W3181156981 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Andrea Chan, Cindy Rottmann, D. E. Reeve, Emily Moore, Milan Maljkovic, Emily Macdonald- Roach

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA) · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEngineering Education and Curriculum Development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsSociotechnical systemIdentity (music)Work (physics)SociologyPublic relationsEngineering ethicsOrder (exchange)Duality (order theory)EngineeringManagementBusinessPolitical scienceEconomicsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this qualitative study, we investigate the ways engineering leaders across different industry sectors conceive of their own professional identities, including those who work in less engineering-intensive sectors such as financial and public services. Our findings are consistent with previous research that rejects adichotomizing of engineering identity into distinct technical and social dimensions along technical and managerial career paths [4], [11]. Drawing directly from the experiences of 29 engineering leaders, our results suggest that engineers in management and leadership, even those outside of traditional engineering industry sectors, retain technical dimensions of their professional identities. By challenging the assumption that engineers must abandon their technical identities in order to embrace leadership work, findings of this study can demonstrate to students and early career engineers they need not resist leadership for fear of losing their engineering identities.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.487
Threshold uncertainty score0.973

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.195
Teacher spread0.189 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations2
Published2021
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA)Same topicEngineering Education and Curriculum DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207