From Diversity to Inclusion: Centring the Voices of Undergraduate Engineering Students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Some Canadian undergraduate engineering programs report 30–40% of enrolled students are women. Kanter’s tipping point theory argues that women become less tokenized when they make up 30% of a group’s population. Other scholars have found that in comparable situations, women continued to experience discrimination, hostility, and competition. This critical study provides further evidence against a tipping point for equity by centring the experiences of traditionally underrepresented undergraduate students studying at a faculty of engineering with 35% women undergraduates enrolled. Reflective thematic analysis of experiences shared bywomen, racialized students, 2SLGBTQ+ students, and students from lower socio-economic statuses found instances of discrimination, varying perceptions of capabilities, and inequitable access to support, community, and on-campus leadership roles. Therefore, institutions need to acknowledge the intersectional experiences of students and work toward changing campus culture in addition to diversity efforts.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.034 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.033 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".