MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412870745 · doi:10.24908/pceea.2025.19624

Making the Familiar Strange: One Student's Critical Experience of Engineering Culture Through Space and Place

2025· article· en· W4412870745 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Katryna N Salm, Kari Zacharias, Jillian Seniuk Cicek

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA) · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducational Environments and Student Outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpace (punctuation)AestheticsSociologyMathematics educationPsychologyArtPhilosophyLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Physical spaces and places significantly influence educational culture, impacting student attitudes, behaviours, and performance. Within engineering education, where themes of masculinity, competition, and eurocentrism dominate the engineering culture, these environments can perpetuate harmful ideologies and stereotypes that oppress minoritized groups. Using a questionnaire grounded in previous qualitative research and cultural and spatial theory, this study explores the dynamic processes that shape one student’s experiences of the spaces and places in the Price Faculty of Engineering. The cultural themes identified manifest in the educational environment as tokenism, emptiness, left-over culture, disparity in care, and inconsistency in space. This research seeks to raise awareness and encourage mindful reflection among students, faculty, staff, and administrators on how physical places and spaces reflect and contribute to potentially harmful cultural norms within engineering educational institutions.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0230.030
Scholarly communication0.0130.009
Open science0.0030.013
Research integrity0.0040.011
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.304 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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 routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA)Same topicEducational Environments and Student OutcomesFrench-language works237,207