Scaling up Women in Computing Initiatives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
How to increase diversity in computer science is an important open question in CS education. A number of best practices have been suggested based on case studies; however, for scaling these efforts up in a sustainable fashion, it remains unclear which types of initiatives are most effective in which contexts. We examine gender diversity initiatives in CS education from a policy analysis perspective, adapting McDonnell and Elmore's 1987 notion of policy instruments, wherein the initiative is the unit of analysis. We present a conceptual framework for categorizing the different policy instruments by a cross of 'leverage' and 'targetedness', and discuss how different types of initiatives will scale. We argue that universally-targeted, high-leverage initiatives are most important for scaling up diversity initiatives in CS education, with medium-leverage being a stepping stone to high leverage change.
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 | 0.039 | 0.054 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.038 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.002 |
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".