Could We Be Any More Feminist? Make Me Barf: Responses to Art at a Women's University
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We began this research with the observation that one finds hostile environments for women in the unlikeliest places.For we found an instance of extreme misogynist rancour --in art exhibit commentary books, in a library, at Canada's only women's university.This is a campus where 60% of faculty and 85% of students are women.Sixty per cent of students are over the age of twenty-four and therefore categorized as "nontraditional."Moreover, the university emphasizes and honours its difference from traditional universities in its explicit dedication to the education of women, as evidenced in its mandate: the university states that it considers the educational needs of women to be paramount, although men are welcomed.Programs, class times, facilities and services are specifically tailored to provide maximum accessibility for women.All the programs we offer are periodically reviewed to ensure that women's concerns are reflected in courses and curriculum ...[T]he objectives of the university [are] to educate women and provide strong leadership role models ... the university's commitment [is] to provide a positive learning environment where women's contributions and perspectives are valued.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".