MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2028784951 · doi:10.1037/h0088124

Looking forward, looking back: Women in psychology.

2001· article· en· W2028784951 sur OpenAlexaffabout
Christine Storm, Maria Gurevich

Notice bibliographique

RevueCanadian Psychology/Psychologie canadienne · 2001
Typearticle
Langueen
DomainePsychology
ThématiqueAcademic and Historical Perspectives in Psychology
Établissements canadiensToronto Metropolitan UniversityUniversity Health NetworkMount Allison University
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésPsychologyPsychoanalysisApplied psychologyCognitive psychologySocial psychology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

articles in this Special Issue were prompted by and originated in the 1999 workshop of the Section on Women and Psychology (SWAP). Entitled The Past and Future of the Section on Women and Psychology, the workshop was held the 60th Annual Canadian Psychology Convention. In keeping with the anniversary theme, the presenters reflected on the Section's history, including its precarious origins and evolution, its role in cPA, and on a reassessment of the discipline in general. workshop was complemented by an address from the cPA Invited Speaker, Jeanne Marecek, whose presentation was entitled A Short History of the Future: Reconstituting Psychology's Subjects and Objects (Marecek, 1999). last reappraisal of Canadian was published by two of the original founders of SWAP (Pyke & Stark-Adamec, 1981) in this journal. It seemed appropriate, therefore, to review our progress over the last 20 years. Accordingly, the contributors to the swAP session included two key founders of SWAP, Sandra Pyke and Cannie Stark, who have also served as CPA's fourth and sixth female presidents, respectively. Joanne Gallivan, as CPA Board member and SWAP/CPA Board Liaison, provided the link to the broader workings of the Association, and Maria Gurevich represented more recent involvement in SWAP. Three of these speakers and Jeanne Marecek are among the contributors for this Special Issue. collection, therefore, represents a balance of long-standing experience and more recent participation in the field. Jeanne Marecek's article provides a broader perspective on past and present developments in epistemology, with a central focus on the deconstruction of gender and its inquiry. Sandra Pyke reviews the inception of in Canada and the influential events that shaped it. She concludes with a forecast of the future of of as a disciplinary specialization. Boatswain, Brown, Fiksenbaum, Goldstein, Greenglass, Nadler, and Pyke evaluate indicators of change, including the status of in the discipline, courses in of women, and research dealing with areas of concern. Cannie Stark focuses on the continuing and future difficulties in the realization of the goals of psychology. Finally, Maria Gurevich reconsiders some of the structural barriers to an enhanced standing of and within the discipline, reflecting on swAP's continuing role in this regard. Meredith Kimball contributed material from the archives of SWAP, which included in the Appendix to this Introduction. This includes a list of the swAP coordinators and newsletter editors, a list of the preconvention institutes and their particulars, and lists of distinguished member awards and student paper awards. perspectives in this collection are varied, and in some instances, divergent, which both expected and desirable given the span of experiences, locations, and investments. central points of departure pivot on the distinction between feminist and psychology of women. terms feminist and psychology of women have been used largely interchangeably within and across the papers. While there are some strategic reasons for doing so in the present collection, and more generally, this conflation also masks the precepts and practices that emerge from the historical distinctions between the two (Burman, 1998). Psychology of has its roots in the 1970s Anglo-American feminism (see Matlin, 1993; Squire, 1989; Unger, 1998). This was a woman-centred psychology, whose aim was to redress the theoretical and empirical inadequacies of an androcentric discipline (Kahn & Jean, 1983; Weisstein, 1968). In contrast, adopts an explicitly politicized stance and is less easily relegated to the position of a psychological area of study (Burman, 1998, p. 3). Rather than dictating specific areas of inquiry, identifies an epistemological stance within the discipline, that is, what counts as knowledge, who defines this, and how it arrived at (Burman, 1998, p. …

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 enseignants

Ni 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.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,002
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesÉtudes des sciences et des technologies
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Qualitatif · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,993
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,089

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0020,004
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0030,003
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0070,004
Communication savante0,0100,008
Science ouverte0,0010,003
Intégrité de la recherche0,0060,006
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0270,008

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,033
Tête enseignante GPT0,339
Écart entre enseignants0,307 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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 découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeQualitatif
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations3
Publié2001
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueCanadian Psychology/Psychologie canadienneMême sujetAcademic and Historical Perspectives in PsychologyTravaux en français237 207