MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2068655515 · doi:10.7771/1481-4374.1972

Recognizing a Collective Inheritance through the History of Women in Computing

2013· article· en· W2068655515 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueCLCWeb Comparative Literature and Culture · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicHistory of Computing Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScholarshipInheritance (genetic algorithm)SociologyHistory of computingSocial history (medicine)Women's historySpace (punctuation)Gender studiesHistoryComputer scienceLawPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In her article "Recognizing a Collective Inheritance through the History of Women in Computing" Erika E. Smith engages with the following question: how might we create the space for women in the history of computing that is deserved? Even with the proliferation of social, political, and historical engagement with feminist theory and computing technology, there remains a lack of scholarship on the topic of women in the history of computing. Given the dearth of historical accounts on the role of women in computing, the task of delving into such history becomes necessary, although difficult. Smith's objective is to examine a spectrum of contemporary feminist theory as it relates to our inherited (hi)stories of women in computing. In charting these (hi)stories, Smith compares diverging feminist theories helpful in shedding further light on historical accounts of women in computing largely forgotten.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.839
Threshold uncertainty score0.627

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.220 · 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