MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1993727988 · doi:10.1016/j.soscij.2005.06.010

Relationships between attitudes toward women's roles in society, and work and life values

2005· article· en· W1993727988 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Social Science Journal · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender Diversity and Inequality
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Lethbridge
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSalience (neuroscience)PsychologySocial psychologyScale (ratio)Exploratory researchPersonal lifeSociologySocial sciencePolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AbstractThis exploratory study examined the relationships between attitudes toward women's roles in society, as measured by the six sub-scales on ward Women Scale (AWS: Spence, J. T., & Helmreich, R. L. (1972). The Attitudes Towards Women Scale: An objective instrument to measure attitudes towards the rights and roles of women in contemporary society. JSAS Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology, 2(66)) and 20 work and life values, as measured by the Life Roles Inventory-Values Scale (LRI-VS: Macnab, D., Fitzsimmons, G., & Casserly, C. (1985). Administrator's manual for the Life Roles Inventory Values and Salience. Edmonton, AB: PsiCan Consulting). It was hypothesized that more liberal attitudes toward women's roles in society would be associated with higher scores on the social, personal and individual values. Results from a sample of 89 management and health sciences undergraduates generally supported the hypothesis.

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.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.246
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.169
GPT teacher head0.352
Teacher spread0.183 · 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