<i>Trinity Western University</i> Decisions and Engineers’ Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion Obligations Under the Statutory Public Interest Mandate
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Engineers create technologies but do not sufficiently care for their biased and inequitable outcomes despite the engineering profession’s statutory mandate to protect the public interest. The engineering and legal professions’ similar admission processes and statutory provisions mandating the protection of public interest may justify applying the Supreme Court of Canada’s interpretation of the legal profession’s public interest mandate in the Trinity Western University decisions to the engineering profession. The Supreme Court’s interpretation centres on equal access to the profession, diversity within its membership, and protection of 2SLGBTQ+ persons. The work begins by setting out the definitions and challenges of equity, diversity, and inclusion (‘‘EDI”) and an overview of the Trinity Western University decisions. A comparison follows of the two professions’ attention to 2SLGBTQ+ issues to reveal the relative EDI progress of each profession and substantiate engineering’s need to adopt the Supreme Court’s EDI-centred interpretation of the public interest mandate. The work then compares the admission processes of the two professions and the provisions setting out each profession’s duty to protect the public interest to demonstrate their similarity and, therefore, transferability of the EDI-centred interpretation. The work concludes that the Supreme Court’s interpretation could apply to the engineering profession and impose on engineers an obligation to uphold EDI principles, including inattending to the potentially biased and inequitable outcomes of their technological creations.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".