An Experimental Study of the Influence of Woman's Studies Courses in College on the Values of Female College Students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Women’s studies/gender studies courses, aiming to foster proper gender values and healthy personalities among college students with theoretical achievements of interdisciplinary gender researches, to advocate their harmonious and comprehensive development both physically and mentally, play a unique role in college curriculum teaching along with many other subjects. Selecting from women’s studies courses taught in college, this article discusses whether and how women’s studies course influence the values of female college students, major influential factors in course teaching, etc, based on the influence of women’s studies courses on value building of female college students. Research statistics indicate as following: (a) Female college students who have taken courses on women’s studies gain an advantage over those who have not in terms of value levels and subentries (vocational/ aesthetic /marital values) in the fixed-group comparison experiment; (b) Courses on women’s studies exert a favorably continuity in influence on the values of female college students, and long term effect is better than the short term; (c) “Students’ attitude towards the courses” and “degree of class participation” are the two major influential factors in women’s studies course in light of the influence on the values of female college students. Course teaching of women’ studies effectively improves the values of female college students.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".