Instilling innovation and entrepreneurship in engineering graduate students: Observations at the University of Calgary
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Today's employers not only want graduates who are critical thinkers and problem solvers that are able to work in teams, but also individuals that understand innovation and how to use entrepreneurial activities to move innovations to become benefits to society. For research‐based graduate students, this is even more desired, with emphasis on an understanding of innovation processes and the realization of the role that innovation plays for the survival and growth of existing corporations as well as the key contribution it makes in start‐up companies. Many engineering programs focus on traditional engineering attributes, and although these are essential elements that engineering graduates should learn through their training, little attention is paid to innovation and the conversion of innovations to realized impacts. Here, we review innovation and discuss our experience with trainees (graduate students and post‐doctoral scholars) and how to engage them in innovation activities. Our observation is that innovation is coachable and can be cultivated in research‐based trainees. We recommend nine actions (understanding the challenge, motivation, safe and mentored local environment, tolerance to failure, diversity, rewarding of passion, awareness of the external, internal‐external environment, and creative destruction and preservation) that trainees should be exposed to in order to promote innovation and entrepreneurial activities so that they can establish and/or strengthen their innovation and entrepreneurship muscles, which hopefully continues after they leave university.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it