MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403748795 · doi:10.24908/pceea.2023.17142

EXPLORING ENTREPRENEURSHIP EDUCATION IN ENGINEERING: INSIGHTS FROM LITERATURE AND PRACTICE REVIEWS

2024· article· en· W4403748795 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Amin Azad, Qin Liu

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA) · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEngineering Education and Curriculum Development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEntrepreneurshipEngineering ethicsEntrepreneurship educationSociologyEngineeringPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Entrepreneurship education (EE), traditionally a business school endeavor, has increasingly been incorporated into educational practices in engineering and other disciplines. In this paper, we draw upon the recent literature on EE to demonstrate a shift in EE from a business-focused approach to an approach that focuses more on the growth of individuals. We also share our observations from an investigation of the website information of major entrepreneurship-focused academic programs in engineering, business and other disciplinary contexts in Canadian postsecondary institutions. The practice review shows that the curriculum for engineering entrepreneurship seems to focus more on the knowledge required for creating new ventures while skill development is also a desired learning outcome in some programs. However, a significant gap is identified in programming for fostering the entrepreneurial mindset that is needed for skill development and innovation. Our reviews also suggest the transdisciplinary characteristic of entrepreneurship education and the importance of transdisciplinary competencies to entrepreneurship education. Limitations in our methods of literature and practice reviews are discussed to inform future similar endeavors on EE.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.443
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.203 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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