MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2058831408 · doi:10.2190/vrd4-69af-wpq6-p734

All-Female Classes in High School Computer Science: Positive Effects in Three Years of Data

2002· article· en· W2058831408 on OpenAlexaff
Gail Crombie, Tracy Abarbanel, Anne Trinneer

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Educational Computing Research · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender and Technology in Education
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
FundersAmerican Association of University Women
KeywordsPsychologyDevelopmental psychologyDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In a three-year study, female students from all-female computer science (CS) classes were compared to male and female students from mixed-gender CS classes. Participants were 250 students enrolled in an elective Grade 11 CS course (63 females from three all-female classes and 155 males and 32 females from nine mixed-gender classes). Participants completed a questionnaire assessing perceived support from teachers and parents, computer-related attitudes, and future academic and occupational intentions. Females from all-female classes reported higher levels of perceived teacher support, confidence, and future academic and occupational intentions than did females from mixed-gender classes. Females from all-female classes reported levels as high as those reported by males on perceived teacher support, whereas males reported higher levels than did females from mixed-gender classes on perceived teacher support, confidence, intrinsic value, and future intentions. The present study provides some initial empirical evidence supporting the positive effects of all-female classes in CS at the high school level.

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)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.151
GPT teacher head0.477
Teacher spread0.326 · 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.

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

Citations29
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Educational Computing ResearchSame topicGender and Technology in EducationFrench-language works237,207