Rethinking the Engineering Design Process: Advantages of Incorporating Indigenous Knowledges, Perspectives, and Methodologies
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
A recent increase in interest in the inclusion of Indigenous Ways of Knowing in engineering education has led to the discussion on how to bridge the worldviews of Indigenous Peoples and modern engineers. A literature review was performed to identify issues in current engineering practice, explore the value of perspective in the process of problem solving, distinguish the differences between engineering and Indigenous worldviews, analyze how these worldviews are compatible and incompatible, and formulate a general approach and value system for engineers going forward. Findings show that there is a need to revise how engineers approach problems, and that the consideration of alternative perspectives can provide new avenues for solving problems. There were indications of potential for symbiosis between Indigenous cultures and engineering, as the inclusion of Indigenous knowledges in engineering and engineering education would not only preserve Indigenous cultures, but alsoimprove the quality of engineering design solutions.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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