Understanding Engineers’ Ethical Environmental Responsibility
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Engineers Canada states that engineers must, “Hold paramount the safety, health and welfare of the public and the protection of the environment and promote health and safety within the workplace” [1]. This is frequently the only guideline directly related to the environment included in Canadian provincial and territorial Professional Engineering Codes of Ethics (PECoE) which are a primary resource for teaching engineering ethics [1]; notably, Ontario’s PECoE currently does not explicitly mention the environment [2]. Minimal formal ethical guidelines indicate interpretations of engineers’ professional responsibility with respect to the environment may vary in both industry and engineering education. With the growing focus on sustainable development alongside escalating environmental crises, a thorough investigation of engineers’ professional ethical responsibility to the environment is time-sensitive and necessary [3]. The purpose of this study is to improve understanding of how engineers and engineering students view and interpret their professional ethical responsibility to the environment and PECoE in a Canadian context. The ultimate goal of this research will be to aid the development of engineering ethics and sustainability curricula, as well as Professional Engineering Codes of Ethics. A key result from preliminary findings, is that participants feel there may be a need to explicitly include more guidelines on the environment in the Ontario PECoE.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".