MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4403764003 · doi:10.24908/pceea.2023.17081

Ontario Engineering Technology to Engineering Transfer Pathway Design

2024· article· en· W4403764003 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Max Ullrich, Kimia Moozeh, Brian Frank

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA) · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHigher Education Learning Practices
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsTechnology transferEngineeringComputer scienceKnowledge management

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Technology to engineering bridging pathways have the potential to increase access to underrepresented or traditionally disadvantaged students, increasing the diversity of the engineering student body. However, opportunities for efficient transfer from technology to engineering in Ontario are limited to a small number of institutions, and otherwise are often time consuming. This paper present progress on a multi-institutional, multi-disciplinary, engineering technology to accredited engineering bridging pathway for Ontario. The proposed process involves students completing 2-3 prerequisite courses during their final year at college, enrolling in a full-time summer bridging semester, and then joining the engineering program to complete the remainder of the normal degree requirements. This pathway is being piloted at Queen’s University for civil and mining engineering beginning in 2023 and growing the number of engineering disciplines and the number of other engineering institutions receiving students for future years.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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 score0.963
Threshold uncertainty score0.841

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0380.003

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.242 · 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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA)→Same topicHigher Education Learning Practices→French-language works237,207→