MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1536164294

Issues in Canadian Geoscience - Women in the Geosciences in Canada and the United States: A Comparative Study

2010· article· en· W1536164294 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Franz W. Nentwich

Bibliographic record

VenueGeoscience Canada · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCareer Development and Diversity
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBachelorDisadvantagedDocumentationEarth scienceLibrary sciencePolitical scienceGeographyGeologyArchaeologyLaw
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The literature on women in the geo-sciences is mainly limited to the experiences of women in Canada and the United States. Compared to women in other scientific careers, women in the geosciences have historically been disadvantaged relative to men because of restrictions on working in the field combined with the lesser value accorded to laboratory and office work. Recently, however, times have changed; linear extrapolation of data from the USA suggests that women earned 50% of undergraduate geoscience degrees in 2008. In Canada the situation has been similar, with 45% of bachelor’s and other undergraduate degrees in geological and earth sciences/geo-sciences disciplines in 2005–2006 having been awarded to women. However, current trends suggest that US women will not attain 50% of geo-science doctorates until about the year 2021 and will not make up half of geoscience faculty until 2084. Increasing the proportion of women faculty is appropriate, given that gender parity has been achieved at the undergraduate student level. The obvious geoscience departments to begin recruiting more women would be those with the lowest percentage of female faculty. Faculty gender representation should better reflect the fact that 34% of geoscience doctorates were awarded to women in North America in 2002, and probably approached 40% in 2010. Overall in Canada in 2006, 18.8% of all geologists, geochemists and geophysicists were women and in the USA for the same year, 16% of geoscientists were women, so the percentages are low for both countries. SOMMAIRE La documentation sur la presence des femmes en geosciences est principalement limitee a la main-d’œuvre canadienne et etasunienne. Par rapport aux femmes dans d’autres domaines scientifiques, les femmes en geosciences ont ete historiquement defavorisees du aux restrictions du travail de terrain combine a la sous-evaluation du travail de bureau et de laboratoire. Mais la situation a change recemment; l’extrapolation lineaire de donnees etasuniennes montre que les femmes ont obtenu 50 % des diplomes de premier cycle en geosciences en 2008. Au Canada la situation a evolue pareillement, ou 45 % des diplomes de baccalaureat et de premier cycle en sciences geologiques ou sciences de la Terre ou geosciences ont ete decernes a des femmes en 2005-2006. Cependant, les tendances etasuniennes actuelles montrent qu’il faudrait attendre autour de 2021 avant que 50 % des doctorats en geosciences ne soient decernes a des femmes, et que ce ne serait qu’en 2084 qu’elles representeraient 50 % du personnel enseignant universitaire. L’accroissement de la proportion de femme enseignant a l’universite est justifie etant donne que la parite a ete atteinte au niveau des etudiants du premier cycle. Evidemment, les premiers departements de geosciences vises devraient etre ceux comptant le moins de femmes dans leur personnel enseignant. La representation des genres chez les enseignants universitaires devrait mieux refleter le fait que 34 % des doctorats ont ete decernes a des femmes en Amerique du Nord en 2002, et approchera probablement 40 % en 2010. Globalement, au Canada en 2006, 18,8 % de tous les geologues, geochimistes et geophysiciens etaient des femmes et, aux E.-U. pour la meme annee, 16 % des geoscientifiques etaient des femmes; des proportions faibles pour les deux pays on en conviendra.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.225
Threshold uncertainty score0.973

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.240 · 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.

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

Citations6
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeoscience CanadaSame topicCareer Development and DiversityFrench-language works237,207