Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion Strategies in Engineering and Computer Science
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article aims to delve into the Equity, Diversity and Inclusivity (EDI) issues prevalent in the engineering disciplines in Canada and Spain, shedding light on the common obstacles faced by underrepresented individuals and highlighting potential strategies to foster a more inclusive and diverse engineering community in these nations. Two strategic lines have been identified: (a) facilitating university education access to underrepresented and minority groups, and (b) Accompanying and guiding such students during university training, setting them up for successful future careers. The article also shows the sets of strategies employed in Canada and Spain, clearly distinguishing the approach taken in the two countries. While in Canada, there is a more decentralized approach wherein the universities device their strategies and agenda to address EDI issues, in Spain there is a stronger and direct involvement of the government to ensure a comprehensive, system-wide approach to tackling EDI issues in academia.
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 | 0.012 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.031 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.024 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".