MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1981245104 · doi:10.7202/800519ar

“The only girl in such a big class”: Women Students at the University of Toronto’s Faculty of Applied Science and Engineering during the 1920s and the 1930s

2009· article· en· W1981245104 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Ruby Heap

Bibliographic record

VenueScientia Canadensis Canadian Journal of the History of Science Technology and Medicine · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Identity and History
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGirlDiversity (politics)InstitutionCurriculumConstruct (python library)Class (philosophy)SociologyWomen in scienceMasculinityPedagogyGender studiesPsychologySocial scienceEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article draws the collective profile and examines the experiences of the handful of women who formed the first generation of female students enrolled at the University of Toronto's Faculty of Applied Science and Engineering (FASE) during the 1920s and 1930s. The student records shed light on their socio-economic background, which they shared to a large extent with their male counterparts and the other women attending university at the time. The available sources also provide information on the school's curriculum and pedagogical practices, and on the main features of student life at FASE. The institution cultivated and transmitted a deeply masculine culture: to train an engineer was to train a man and to construct a specific type of masculinity, symbolized by the "Schoolmen" and the "School Spirit." How did the pioneers adapt to this environment? How did FASE respond to their arrival? The article accounts for the diversity of views and experiences of the female students, and for the different reactions to their presence. Nevertheless, the entry of this pioneering group at FASE openly raised the question: can a woman be a woman and an engineer? Other studies are needed to better understand how female students answered this question in their own way, in different schools of engineering and in different historical settings. This work will help bring answers to this other question, which is still widely debated: why so few women engineers?

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.973
Threshold uncertainty score0.936

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0400.017
Scholarly communication0.0100.004
Open science0.0020.009
Research integrity0.0040.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.195
Teacher spread0.189 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designQualitative
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
Published2009
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScientia Canadensis Canadian Journal of the History of Science Technology and MedicineSame topicCanadian Identity and HistoryFrench-language works237,207