MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403748762 · doi:10.24908/pceea.2023.17165

Integrating Inclusive Leadership Practices into Engineering Education

2024· article· en· W4403748762 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Renée Pellissier, Claudia T. Flynn, Marwan Kanaan

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA) · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEngineering Education and Curriculum Development
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersMcGill University
KeywordsEngineering ethicsSociologyPolitical sciencePedagogyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Growing diversity in engineering projects and teams calls for leaders who can put inclusion at the forefront. To enter the workforce ready to be effective, inclusive leaders, engineering students must be equipped with the necessary interpersonal skills and well versed in applied principles of equity, diversity, and inclusion. The E-IDEA Teamwork Initiative has developed a pedagogy integrating inclusive leadership practices into technical engineering courses through a series of skills-based workshops. The intended outcomes are to embed inclusive leadership training into the undergraduate engineering curriculum, to build capacity among course instructors, and for students to complete their degrees with a well-rounded skillset. Positive feedback from students and instructors alike has consistently reinforced the need for this shift in engineering education. With the tools to be inclusive leaders, students will enter the workforce ready and able to recognize bias, challenge the status quo, and promote sustainable innovation.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.996
Threshold uncertainty score0.038

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.006
Scholarly communication0.0080.006
Open science0.0010.017
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.223 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA)Same topicEngineering Education and Curriculum DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207