MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412870742 · doi:10.24908/pceea.2025.19680

Assessing Student Perspectives on Engineering Leadership Education in Canada

2025· article· en· W4412870742 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Pacifique Kiza Rusati, Kari Zacharias, Stephanie Hladik

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA) · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEngineering Education and Curriculum Development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEducational leadershipEngineering educationEngineering ethicsPedagogySociologyPolitical scienceEngineeringEngineering management

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Engineering leadership (EL) is gaining global attention due to its importance in engineering practices. This study aims to explore undergraduate students' experiences with EL programs in Canada by analyzing 13 peer-reviewed full papers published in CEEA-ACÉG Proceedings over the last 15 years. Findings revealed that EL programs successfully developed students' leadership competencies, such as self-awareness, interpersonal skills, collaboration, and organizational skills. Moreover, students were satisfied with their EL experience and appreciated activities that have a tangible impact on their community. However, communication skills were a major barrier to effective leadership in engineering teams. Nonetheless, only a small number of research studies have examined minoritized students' experiences in EL programs and the implementation of EL in capstone design courses. Future research could leverage the findings from this study to explore the experiences of underrepresented engineering students in leadership-related programs, as well as the potential for implementing EL in capstone design courses.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.537
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.215 · 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.

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA)Same topicEngineering Education and Curriculum DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207