Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract The conditions under which women academics work provide the impetus for this article. Current trends in feminist and other writing are moving us away from dwelling on the disadvantages women experience in the academy. Yet the findings from the two Canadian studies reported here suggest that issues around children and career, anxieties about evaluation, and fatigue and stress shape the daily lives of women academics. The women do find ways and means of coping and resisting, sometimes collectively, although one of the major responses—working harder and sleeping less—might be considered somewhat short of empowering. We also look at what the prospects are for changes in university policies and practices. Notes * Corresponding author: Department of Sociology and Equity Studies in Education, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education of the University of Toronto, 252 Bloor St West, Toronto, Ontario M5S 1V6, Canada. Email:sacker@oise.utoronto.ca Nevertheless, there are still recent publications on the topic coming out of other countries such as Australia and New Zealand (Brooks & Mackinnon, Citation2001; Luke, Citation2001) and the United States (Ropers‐Huilman, Citation2003). Journals examined included British Journal of Sociology of Education, Canadian Journal of Higher Education, Gender and Education, Resources for Feminist Research, Studies in Higher Education and Women's Studies International Forum. See the later section on 'Evaluation'. In 1999–2000, women comprised 12% of professors and 24% of senior lecturers and equivalent researchers in the UK (Times Higher Education Supplement, Citation2003); the closest equivalent in Canada would be full professors, of which women were 16% in 2001 (AUCC, Citation2002, p.21). It is difficult to compare countries because of different definitions of rank and different conventions in collecting statistics. Even within a country, statistics from different sources are not always consistent. We decided not to identify in the text which study each person participated in, as it would be tedious to have such repeated references. For those interested in sorting out which statements come from which project, here are the pseudonyms in the article grouped by project. Making a difference: Alicia, Bella, Beth, Georgina, Grace, Helen, Iris, Kaila, Kay, Lisa, Lucille, Mary, Moira, Nicole, Norene, Olivette, Rose, Ruth, Solange, Susan, Tamara, Terri, Wendy; Women academics blending private and public lives: Audrey, Brigid, Carol, Cynthia, Irene, Janice, Madeleine, Megan, Natalie, Paula, Rachel, Vanessa, Vivian. Typically the candidate submits all published work, a cv, a narrative of accomplishments and a teaching dossier (a record of student course evaluations, course outlines, teaching philosophy, etc.) Appraisals by internal and external reviewers of the scholarship as well as letters from former students are sought. A tenure committee evaluates the evidence and makes a recommendation to higher levels of management. Additional informationNotes on contributorsSandra Acker Footnote* * Corresponding author: Department of Sociology and Equity Studies in Education, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education of the University of Toronto, 252 Bloor St West, Toronto, Ontario M5S 1V6, Canada. Email:sacker@oise.utoronto.ca
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.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
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 découle