MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4308709879 · doi:10.24908/pceea.vi.15942

Surveying Land-Based Learning for Engineering Education: Preliminary Steps

2022· article· en· W4308709879 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Kari Zacharias, Jillian Seniuk Cicek, Nettie Wallace, Kate Mercer

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA) · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIndigenous and Place-Based Education
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WaterlooUniversity of Manitoba
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of Manitoba
KeywordsIndigenizationContext (archaeology)CurriculumWork (physics)Political sciencePedagogySociologyGeographyEngineeringArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper reports the findings of an initial literature and website search of land-based education initiatives in Canadian post-secondary institutions. This work represents the first stage of a larger project, which aims to gather information about existing land-based education within Canadian post-secondary institutions and develop land-based curriculum for engineering students. The paper begins with a discussion of truth, reconciliation, Indigenization and decolonization in the context of education and land-based learning. It continues by presenting the authors’ positionalities, and then methods and findings. Preliminary findings from the initial search show that land-based approaches do not appear to be widespread within engineering faculties, programs, or courses in Canada. Additionally, more diversified knowledge gathering is required to better understand the current landscape of land education within Canadian post-secondary institutions.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.025
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.047
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.863
Threshold uncertainty score0.275

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0250.047
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0100.019
Science and technology studies0.0080.003
Scholarly communication0.0070.004
Open science0.0030.005
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.219 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations2
Published2022
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA)Same topicIndigenous and Place-Based EducationFrench-language works237,207