What We Hold Paramount: A British Columbian Case Study on the Limitations of Engineering Regulation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Engineering regulators bear the legal and social responsibility to protect the public from the risks intrinsic to engineering work. Despite this mandate, Engineers and Geoscientists of BC (EGBC) has received criticism for its effectiveness in enforcing the Code of Ethics, contributing to the loss of some regulatory autonomy through the BC Professional Governance Act. This paper reflects on the role and effectiveness of engineering regulators in holding paramount the public interest, and the corresponding role of engineering educators to teach a critical perspective on the effectiveness of engineering regulators to their students. The public interest is examined primarily through examples such as climate change and sustainability where engineers play an enabling role. Recommendations are made on how to present a more balanced narrative on engineering regulators to students through proposed learning outcomes derived from the conclusion of the analysis.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.059 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.016 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".