MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1849968897 · doi:10.29173/eureka22823

Women in Research

2014· article· en· W1849968897 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Helena Zakrzewski, Yvonne Y. Chen

Bibliographic record

VenueEureka · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCareer Development and Diversity
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of AlbertaUniversities Space Research Association
KeywordsStereotype (UML)Women in scienceStereotype threatPsychologyGender studiesSociologySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

From the Greek Mathematician Hypatia to Chemistry Nobel Prize winner Dr. Ada Yonath, women have made valuable contributions to Science for thousands of years. However, today some girls are held back by the gender stereotype that women are not good at science. To work to break the stereotype, we interviewed three women in research: Meagan Lyszczyk from Chemistry, Maddy Wang from Computing Science, and Yvonne Wong from Psychology. While they each come from different scientific disciplines, they are all splendid examples of women in research. We hope that these womens’ stories and advice can inspire and encourage more students to become involved in research, especially those young women who want to but are afraid to.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.740
Threshold uncertainty score0.496

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.202
GPT teacher head0.398
Teacher spread0.195 · 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

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEurekaSame topicCareer Development and DiversityFrench-language works237,207