Stubborn boundaries: the iron ring ritual as a case of mapping, resisting, and transforming Canadian engineering ethics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article explores the historical context and ongoing discussions of the iron ring ritual, a prominent tradition in Canadian engineering. We employ discourse analysis to describe and analyze components of the ritual itself, as well as more recent texts related to contemporary conversations about the ritual. We apply Alice Pawley’s scholarship on boundary work in engineering as an analytical framework and find the ritual has served to reproduce and map boundaries around engineering ethics and responsibility in Canada, and numerous actors have resisted those boundaries based on opposition to the colonial, misogynistic, and Christian values embedded in the ritual, as well as the ritual’s framing of engineering agency and responsibility. We reflect on the lessons this case can offer for members of the Canadian engineering and engineering education communities, as well as for those interested in the power and complexity of humanistic interventions in engineering.
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 | 0.014 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.082 | 0.098 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 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".