MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6912246551 · doi:10.5281/zenodo.14698004

Engineering Education for Sustainable Cities in Africa: Conversations From Kenya

2017· article· en· W6912246551 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEngineering Education and Curriculum Development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKenyaAccreditationCurriculumEngineering educationContext (archaeology)Curriculum developmentCDIO

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Projected urban growth in Kenya will require increased engineering talent and resources to facilitate the infrastructure demands of growing urban centers [1]. This study aims to understand how Kenyan institutions are currently equipped to support engineering programs and what factors need to be considered to reform the curricula to support rapid urban growth in the region. To investigate these questions, a research team travelled to Kenya in July, 2016 to study the engineering programs and interview faculty members at two universities. The method of currere was used as a framework for analyzing the regressive, the progressive, the analytical and the synthetical. Four key insights emerged from the study: opportunities exist for curriculum reform of Kenyan engineering curricula to mirror emerging engineering pedagogy and practice, context is a critical factor in curriculum reform, accreditation is a key consideration for online learning in engineering education, and there was an openness to collaboration regarding curriculum reform. This study focused on the perspective of the educational institution. As such, further research is suggested regarding the institutional factors, notably the accreditation standards for online learning, the industry objectives and the policy objectives to inform the context of the conversations of engineering education in Kenya.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.539
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
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.200 · 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 designNot applicable
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
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)Same topicEngineering Education and Curriculum DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207