Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Recent statistics reported in the Digest of Education Statistics (2010, Table 303) show that more women than men earned doctoral degrees. Notably, as shown in the 2008-09 study, of the 67,716 degrees earned, 32,279 were by males and 35,437 were by females. Additionally, of the total degrees males earned there were 17,094 by Whites, 1,484 by Blacks, 1,092 by Hispanics, and 1,770 by Asian/Pacific Islanders. For females there were 22,554 by Whites, 2,950 by Blacks, 1,448 by Hispanics, and 2,105 by Asian/Pacific Islanders. This higher number of doctoral degrees earned by women suggests that they are credentialed for an almost equal number of faculty positions available in academe. An examination of Table 249 (Digest of Education Statistics, 2008) did not reveal a near equal number of males and females in those faculty positions. On the contrary, Table 249 shows that for year 2007 there were 703,463 faculty positions divided among six professorial categories (Professor - often referred to as Full Professor, Associate Professor, Assistant Professor, Instructor, Lecturer, and Other). Overwhelmingly, males (409,115) outpaced females (294,348) in these faculty positions. For the highest faculty rank (Professor - which is associated with a higher salary and access to information that may not be made available to lower ranked faculty), male faculty (127,488) outnumbered their female (45,907) counterparts. A further examination of these statistics shows that of the total (540,460) positions held by White faculty, there were 108,404 males and 39,463 female Professors. Of the total (37,930) Black faculty positions, 3,646 were held by males and 2,193 by female Professors. There were 24,975 total faculty positions held by Hispanics; ofthat number 2,874 were held by males and 1 ,254 by female Professors. There was a total of 53 ,66 1 Asian/Pacific Islanders faculty; ofthat number 1 0,01 8 were held by males and 2,22 1 by female Professors. This lower number of females at the highest ranked level indicates that they are not as privileged in academe as males. This becomes even more disturbing in recognizing that non- White females are a small fraction (total 5,668) of this professorial pool. Authors of articles in this special issue of The Negro Educational Review (NER) questioned why so few non- White females have been promoted and tenured in academe. Guest Editors Dr. Deirdre Cobb-Roberts and Dr. Vonzell Agosto and NER co-managing editor Dr. Shirley Biggs have labored diligently to give voice to issues related to the dismally low numbers of these women in the academy and the challenges they face in their quest to earn tenure and promotion to the highest academic rank. In addition, they direct attention to instances of the many exemplary scholarly and service contributions they make as members of the academy. Dr. Deirdre Cobb-Roberts is an associate professor in the Department of Psychological and Social Foundations at the University of South Florida. Her research focuses on the history of American higher education, teacher preparation, and the role of social justice in culturally responsive and responsible pedagogy. She has co-edited a book and published articles related to this research in the History of Education Quarterly, American Educational Research Journal, Journal of Teacher Education, International Journal of Educational Policy, Research and Practice, and Educational Considerations. Dr. Vonzell Agosto is an assistant professor in the Department of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies at the University of South Florida. Her research focuses on curriculum, pedagogy, and the leadership preparation toward anti-oppressive education. She has presented her research at major conferences including the American Education Research Association, University Council for Educational Administration, Bergamo, and the Critical Race Studies in Education Conference. Dr. Agosto has published in journals such as the Journal of Negro Education, Teacher Education & Practice, and various handbooks. …
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».