MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2069634489 · doi:10.1080/09540250500380521

Views and perspectives of women’s studies: a survey of women and men students

2005· article· en· W2069634489 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

VenueGender and Education · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHistorical Gender and Feminism Studies
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInstitutionHigher educationDemisePsychologyPower (physics)Gender studiesQualitative propertyQualitative researchFeminismSociologyPolitical scienceSocial scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In this article we draw on data from a completed project entitled Why Do Women's Studies? involving five English Universities. However, the data reported here focuses on a single institution. The data were collected through questionnaires which combined quantitative and qualitative questions and we have the views of three distinct groups of students: students taking women's studies as a degree; students taking other degrees but including women's studies modules and students with no experience of women's studies. After detailing our method and reflecting on some methodological issues we present and debate our data which shows that although many of the conventional stereotypes regarding women's studies remain in common discourses they seem to be agreed with less than they are reported to have been heard. Yet, the power of these discourses remains a danger to women's studies as evidenced by its demise as an undergraduate course in many English institutions. Notes 1. The institutional comparative aspect of our research is discussed in Letherby and Marchbank (Citation2001). 2. This was not a randomised sample of questionnaires and we do not claim that our respondents are statistically representative of all students. 3. We think it ironic that a masculine image has been used to ridicule women's studies. 4. UCAS = University and Colleges Admissions Service, through which all undergraduate applications for higher education are processed in the UK. 5. It should be noted that in the institution discussed here men have never been excluded from either the degree nor the classes in women's studies and each year a number of men have undertaken women's studies modules. 6. This was the case at the time of the survey, a situation that was rectified for the next academic year. 7. We choose this as this phrase represents a number of negative terms used to denote lesbians in several anglophone societies. 8. Branding is a method recognized by political scientists by which an issue, topic or subject may be made less threatening by labelling as illegitimate; see Marchbank (Citation2000). 9. It is the interpretation of others, not the authors, that lesbianism is a 'negative' category. In fact, one of us is a lesbian and the other is at times suspected of being so. 10. In using this quote we do recognize that women's studies exists outside of the western academy—in, e.g., India, etc.

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)0.001
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: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.300
Threshold uncertainty score0.229

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.120
GPT teacher head0.401
Teacher spread0.281 · 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