MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4236112855 · doi:10.24908/pceea.v0i0.3665

ENTREPRENEURIAL EDUCATION IN ENGINEERING CURRICULA AT THE UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO

2011· article· en· W4236112855 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Anh‐Dao Tran, J. C. Paradi

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA) · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEngineering Education and Pedagogy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCurriculumGraduation (instrument)CommercializationContext (archaeology)Work (physics)PopularityEngineering educationEntrepreneurshipPublic relationsSociologyEngineering ethicsPedagogyPolitical scienceEngineeringMarketingBusinessEngineering management

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The importance and implications of entrepreneurial education in engineering curricula have been well-documented, leading to its rapid growth in many Canadian Engineering schools in recent years. For undergraduate students, this education promotes interdisciplinary and diverse thought with awareness of the political, financial and social environments that inevitably influence their careers and possible business initiatives on the local and/or global stage. For graduate students developing leading-edge technologies, this education encourages the much needed commercialization of innovations in Canada. However, entrepreneurial education is often outsourced to business schools which emphasize theory over pragmatic real-world approaches. This paper describes a latter approach: an entrepreneurial program designed for engineering students at the University of Toronto (UofT). Specifically, we report on the curriculum of courses offered and taught by practicing entrepreneurs who lecture in the context of their own experiences. The result is a program focused less on theoretical work and more on the opportunities and obstacles likely to be encountered in an entrepreneurial career. Our program has evolved over more than 20 years. It has been a great success with students, in terms of their satisfaction as well as in their business formation and value/wealth creation after graduation. This has consequently led to its popularity; we currently serve 180-200 students each year out of the many who apply. With such demand exceeding our capacity, plans for expansion are underway and expected to run smoothly as the program is purposely designed in modules to make the courses easy to “clone”, and for new instructors to be trained quickly. Moreover, we see potential for other faculties at the UofT and other universities to adopt and modify our model to suit their future needs.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.294
Threshold uncertainty score0.980

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.177
Teacher spread0.172 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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