MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412870768 · doi:10.24908/pceea.2025.19609

Discovering the Pathways of Engineering Mentorship: An Auto-Ethnographic Exploration

2025· article· en· W4412870768 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Libby Osgood, Se Shaw

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA) · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCareer Development and Diversity
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Prince Edward Island
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMentorshipEthnographyEngineering ethicsSociologyEngineeringArtAnthropologyVisual arts

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mentorship acts as a catalyst for belonging and success in the field of engineering, particularly for people from underrepresented groups. This paper examines the mentorship experiences of a female undergraduate engineering student. Using an auto-ethnographic methodology and mixed-methods approach, mentorship experiences were thematically and statistically analyzed through the lens of gender, mentorship pathway, timing, and impact-identification. Key findings include the presence of mentorship experiences with primarily male faculty, staff, and students prior to beginning an engineering degree, highlighting the important role that men, in all positions, play as allies in the recruitment of girls in engineering. It was found that invitations to more impactful mentorship experiences often developed from an initial experience that the mentee first initiated. Further, the defining attributes of a mentor consisted of being a role model, being welcoming, offering encouragement, and providing guidance. Overall, the exercise of reflecting on mentorship was a powerful experience, highlighting the importance of self-reflection in student development.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.041

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.227
Teacher spread0.212 · 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 topicCareer Development and DiversityFrench-language works237,207