MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1506560654

Interview with Paula Caplan

2007· article· en· W1506560654 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Janice Ristock

Bibliographic record

VenueResources for feminist research · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicCommunity Health and Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSociologyBlameGender studiesMedia studiesLawPsychologyPolitical scienceSocial psychology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Paula J. Caplan is former Full Professor of Applied Psychology and former Head of the Centre for Women's Studies in Education at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education at the University of Toronto. Currently, she is Visiting Scholar at the Pembroke Center at Brown University and Adjunct Professor at Washington College of Law, American University. She is the author of numerous books and plays, and is a playwright, actor, and director. Her books include: The Myth of Women's Masochism; Don't Blame Mother: Mending the Mother-Daughter Relationship and Lifting a Ton of Feathers: A Woman's Guide to Surviving in the Academic World. I interviewed Paula about her memories of working with Jeri Wine. They worked together from 1980 until 1991 when Jeri took early retirement because of ill health. Together they taught in the Community Psychology Program at OISE and ensured that it had a strong feminist analysis as parts of its core. Community Psychology programs were (and remain) rare in North American Psychology Departments because of the alternative critical analysis and perspective the area offers with its emphasis on community-based research and social action. Paula and Jeri also struggled together as feminist academics at a time when it was difficult to be a woman in male-centred, patriarchal institutions, as both their writings attest. Further, they each experienced debilitating health issues because of the sick building in which they worked. In fact, Paula was unable to continue teaching in the building and was forced to leave in 1995. My interview touches on these intersecting areas of their working lives. Paula reflects on the great support that Jeri offered her, the impact of her research and commitment to feminism and finally, on Jeri's legacy. - J.R. JR: I wondered if you could tell me when you first started working with Jeri and how long you worked with her? PC: I can tell you what my first memory of Jeri is. It's kind of general. But I became aware of her, I think, for the first time in connection with what was then called the Canadian Psychological Association's Interest Group on Women and Psychology. It was called IGWAP and they were doing this revolutionary thing of having a pre-convention institute or workshop. I remember going to that and hearing Jeri speak on the remarkable groundbreaking work she and her colleagues had done. It is work that to this day, I'm teaching. The research was done probably toward the late 70s. People were saying that women were not as assertive as men and were more dependent than men. What they said, and this is how I describe it to my students, was, let's look at the literature that's the basis of those claims, let's look up the empirical research. They found that in both cases, the results of the research actually fell into two categories. With respect to assertiveness, in one group of studies it was found that that men were more assertive. In the other group, it was found that either there was either no sex difference, or women were more assertive. There were more of the first group of studies than the second, so they used this box score approach (not Jeri and her colleagues.) And they said, OK, so the men win, right. Men are more assertive. But Jeri et al. said, let's look at what those studies really are. They found that the studies in which men were doing more of what was being called assertiveness were actually studies of interrupting and, you know, sort of giving monosyllabic responses to the other person. And then rushing on with what they had to say. In other words, they were showing what people might otherwise call rudeness. But it was called assertiveness. And the studies in which there was no sex difference or even that it favoured women were studies of saying what you thought and/or felt and then just sticking to it which is a good definition of assertiveness. There were fewer of those studies. And with regard to dependency, it was something similar. …

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.554
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.332
GPT teacher head0.571
Teacher spread0.239 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResources for feminist researchSame topicCommunity Health and DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207