MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Supporting Inclusive Engineering Education using Global Virtual Teams

2021· article· en· W4285481055 on OpenAlexafffund
Anuli Ndubuisi, James D. Slotta

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicKnowledge Management and Sharing
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsKnowledge managementTeamworkEngineering educationMultidisciplinary approachContext (archaeology)EngineeringWork (physics)Engineering managementComputer scienceManagementPolitical scienceMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Future engineers require global competencies to help them transition to the labor market in an increasingly complex, digitized, and evolving world economy. In response, an International Virtual Engineering Student Teams’ (InVEST) program was developed, in which multidisciplinary students were engaged in collaborative technical projects within a global virtual team learning environment. This study examines engineering students’ intercultural competencies and supports their development of those competencies within the context of a global engineering project where they work in culturally diverse teams. We report on two successive iterations of the engineering global virtual team (GVT) learning program. Each included a pre-survey to understand student’s initial knowledge and cultural orientation and a post-survey to assess students’ perceptions of their intercultural learning and experiences. We found that blending global virtual team learning with collaborative international projects was an effective strategy for helping engineering students gain international exposure in an inclusive manner while developing intercultural competencies, virtual team collaboration skills, and technical engineering knowledge.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.807
Threshold uncertainty score0.530

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.351
Teacher spread0.338 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations3
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicKnowledge Management and SharingFrench-language works237,207