MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405674897 · doi:10.24908/pceea.2024.18625

Preliminary Employment Trajectory Findings from a Pan-Canadian Survey on Career Motivations and Aspirations of Undergraduate Engineering Students

2024· article· en· W4405674897 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Sean Maw, Paul Neufeld, Lawrence R. Chen, Carol P. Jaeger, Kimia Moozeh, Peter Ostafichuk, Brian Frank, Carolyn MacGregor, Grant McSorley, Jason Grove

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA) · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCareer Development and Diversity
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Prince Edward IslandUniversity of WaterlooQueen's UniversityUniversity of British ColumbiaMcGill UniversityUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTrajectoryPsychologySociologyMathematics educationPedagogyMedical educationMedicinePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Engineering students have varied vocational motivations and aspirations. Clarity regarding these factors, how they can be nurtured, and how they can impact attrition from the profession can help foster retention and diversification. A survey was deployed in 2023 at six Canadian schools, garnering about 2500 responses. Approximately 45 questions examined demographics, motivations for choosing engineering, engineering identity, personality characteristics, career aspirations, and influencing factors. We focus on three research questions in this study: 1) to what extent do students self-identify as engineers (in training), 2) do students have preferences concerning the types of organizations they aspire to work within, and 3) do students have preferences concerning the types of work (or employment trajectories) they aspire to pursue. Responses were examined across gender, year of study, and institution, and were characterized using descriptive statistics, significance testing, and ANOVAs. Initial results provide a rich picture of student career interests, varying by demographics.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.099
Threshold uncertainty score0.758

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.216 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA)Same topicCareer Development and DiversityFrench-language works237,207