MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W7134293235

Women, Transgender, Femme and Nonconforming People

2019· report· en· W7134293235 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Kate Davis, Lucie Stepanik, Sydney Rankmore, Kaithlyn Given

Notice bibliographique

RevuecIRcle (University of British Columbia) · 2019
Typereport
Langueen
Domaine
Thématique
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésIncentiveNightlifeQualitative researchEvent (particle physics)Set (abstract data type)OutreachPsychological intervention
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

The purpose of this research is to explore the barriers and incentives that exist for women, transgender, femme and gender nonconforming people to participate in nighttime events on UBC campus. Through our research, we hoped to be able to understand in what spaces women, transgender, femme and gender nonconforming people want to see more events taking place, what would compel them to attend nighttime events on campus, and what is currently preventing them for participating in existing nighttime events. To answer these questions, we used a mixed-method qualitative approach. We started with a review of key literature on the subjects of gender, nightlife and inclusive spaces. This helped us understand what other Canadian campuses are doing to create inclusive campus events and also to frame our research through an intersectional feminist lens. We then collected our data through three outreach and engagement activities. We set up a booth at the NEST Building in central UBC campus with two large engagement boards, asking “where do you want to see a nighttime event on campus?” and “what would draw you to a nighttime event on campus?”. We approached groups of people passing by, and asked them to participate. Participants were asked to write their identifiers on sticky notes and place them on the two boards. If respondents were willing to participate further, we would conduct a short and informal interview that allowed us to gather more detailed information about barriers and incentives to participating in nighttime events on campus. Our last engagement method was in the form of a short online survey that we sent to three groups on campus that work to promote gender-diversity and inclusion at UBC. In our research we found that just over 50% of respondents wanted to see nighttime events in and around the NEST. The next most-desired location was in the Arts and Culture District of UBC campus. For type of events, those involving food, music, and drinking were most popular among our studied population. Accessible transportation has been identified as a main draw to nighttime events, specifically for those living off-campus, making up 60% of respondents. We found that many people attend events for social interaction or because their friends are also attending. Music is also a main draw to nighttime events; however, it can also be a deterrent to individuals if it they do not enjoy the type of music being played. Further, transportation, along with distance from home are the primary factors preventing our targeted population from attending nighttime events. Cost, food and busy schedules were also identified as being important factors. These findings have led us to make four key recommendations. First, event information should be shared and contained in a central location. Second, events should be free as often as possible. Third, events should be held in central locations, close to main transportation stops on campus and fourth, events on campus should have a greater diversity of content to attract a wider range of students. Disclaimer: “UBC SEEDS provides students with the opportunity to share the findings of their studies, as well as their opinions, conclusions and recommendations with the UBC community. The reader should bear in mind that this is a student project/report and is not an official document of UBC. Furthermore readers should bear in mind that these reports may not reflect the current status of activities at UBC. We urge you to contact the research persons mentioned in a report or the SEEDS Coordinator about the current status of the subject matter of a project/report.”

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)0,004
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Autre · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,972
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,056

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0040,005
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0100,008
Communication savante0,0050,004
Science ouverte0,0010,004
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0080,001

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,024
Tête enseignante GPT0,207
Écart entre enseignants0,183 · 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.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreAutre

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

En bref

Citations0
Publié2019
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revuecIRcle (University of British Columbia)→Travaux en français237 207→