MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1501842105 · doi:10.1007/978-0-387-35509-2_8

Gender Differences in Vancouver Secondary Students

2000· book-chapter· en· W1501842105 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Vivien Chan, Katie Stafford, Maria Klawe, G. Chen

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender and Technology in Education
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersVancouver Foundation
KeywordsPersonalityPerceptionPsychologyMedical educationComputer literacyWork (physics)Applied psychologySocial psychologyMathematics educationMedicineEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents results from a survey of Vancouver secondary school students on their interests and perceived abilities in a range of subjects, the factors they felt would influence their career choices, and a number of issues related to computer use and perceptions of computer professionals. Females indicated substantially lower interest and perceived ability than males in three subjects, namely computer science, engineering and physics. Females also reported spending less time on most forms of computer activities at school and at home, and gave lower estimates of their computer skills. The survey also revealed that both male and female students have little knowledge of the skills and personality characteristics needed for success in information technology careers. These findings may help explain the low participation of women in information technology areas in university and the work force. These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.881
Threshold uncertainty score0.236

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.042
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.270 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations17
Published2000
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGender and Technology in EducationFrench-language works237,207