Bibliographic record
Abstract
tilizing qualitative research methodology and a feminist framework, I examined women's distance learning experiences. I interviewed nine women from a variety of educational backgrounds and circumstances who had studied a women's studies course by homestudy or teleconferencing from Athabasca University during 1990 and 1991. Distance education for the women interviewed succeeded in extending educational opportunities to them and in dismantling significant barriers that have historically restricted women's access to learning opportunities. Although they praised distance education, the women interviewed unani-mously agreed that distance study "isn't for everyone" and that it is a significantly different experience for female learners than it is for male learners. These women were grateful that communication technologies, despite their imperfections, allowed them to study from their own homes, at times most convenient for their personal schedules. I conclude that fur-ther research is warranted and offer recommendations to improve women's distance study experiences, particularly in women's studies courses. À l'aide d'une méthodologie de recherche qualitative et d'un cadre théo-rique féministe, nous avons examiné les expériences d'apprentissage à distance chez les femmes. Neuf femmes de circonstances et d'antécédents scolaires variés qui étaient inscrites, en 1990 et 1991, à un programme d'études féministes offert par l'université Athabasca et dispensé par corres-pondance ou par téléconférence, ont été interviewées aux fins de cette étude. Elle ont déclaré que la formation à distance avait élargi leurs pers-pectives de formation et leur avait permis de briser les entraves qui ont traditionnellement réduit l'accès des femmes à l'instruction. Tout en faisant l'éloge de l'éducation à distance, elles ont souligné que l'apprentissage à distance "ne convient pas à tout le monde" et ont con-firmé que l'expérience des femmes est ici aussi fort différente de celle des hommes. Elles ont exprimé leur gratitude envers une technologie qui, pour imparfaite qu'elle soit, leur permettait néanmoins d'étudier sans quitter leur foyer, et selon leur horaire personnel. Nous en concluons que des recherches supplémentaires sont justifiées, et proposons quelques recom-mandations susceptibles d'améliorer les expériences d'apprentissage à dis-tance des femmes, notamment en ce qui concerne les études féministes. distance et les sujets s'y rattachant. Les critiques non sollicitées ne seront pas acceptées pour fins de publication.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".