Who's Experiencing Weathering? A question of belonging in the engineering profession
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite persistent efforts to diversify the engineering profession, inequities persist. As part of a larger research project on career paths, the authors conducted a large-scale survey of Canadian engineers with a minimum of 10 years’ experience in professional practice. This line of analysis explores Canadian engineers’ personal sense of belonging in the engineering profession. Results indicate that while 58.1% of survey respondents had a high sense of belonging, racialized women and white women disproportionately rated a lower sense of belonging, despite increases in representation. Further investigation reveals that for racialized women continued low visibility, discrimination, barriers to licensing, and views on what counts as engineering work were some of the reasons for a lower sense of belonging. This mixed-methods research reveals the hidden curriculum – institutional mechanisms – within the profession that contributes to weathering in the profession and highlights the importance of using an intersectional lens when looking at belonging.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 it