Reflections on the journey: six short stories
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One of the goals of the 2011 International Year of Chemistry is to celebrate the contributions of women to science. A question that has been frequently asked in this regard is... Why is it necessary to highlight women in the "age of equality"? The reasons are varied but the facts are that many women scientists worked in obscurity throughout the 19th and even well into the 20th century, sometimes publishing anonymously to be heard. This celebration of Women in Science is one way to recognize both the resiliency and passion of these women. As part of this celebration, Chemistry Central Journal's Thematic Series of "Women in Chemistry" includes this article describing the path several women took as they pursued chemistry careers spanning the latter part of the 20th century and into the early 21st century. Sharon Haynie, Nancy Jones, Cheryl Martin, Paula Olsiewski, Mary Roberts and Amber Hinkle each have unique story of their personal journey from childhood to adulthood. As you read these stories, listen generously, and feel free to share your own stories, comments and thoughts.
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 | 0.008 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.025 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.003 |
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".