Attribution of Career Facilitators by Eminent Women from Canada and Finland
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Highly successful contemporary women from two countries, Canada and Finland, were surveyed in an attempt to identify the elements in their lives that facilitated or prevented their achievement level. This work is exploratory research into the similarities among factors that promote female achievement. The overall purpose was to expand our understanding of female talent development applicable to contemporary girls and women despite their national origin. In total, 1553 Canadians and 424 Finns, listed in a Who's Who biographical publication of each country were invited to participate. There were 827 respondents from Canada and 280 from Finland who chose to participate in the study. Data were collected by means of a written questionnaire dealing with career development. The two sample sets were then compared by their responses to the demographic questions. The two groups were very similar as to birth order, education, marital status and motherhood. Main results show that in recalling their past, the eminent women reported that their own qualities and personal convictions were the primary reasons for attainment of prominence or fame. Both Finns and Canadians also gave considerable credit to the close members of their families. Spouses and parents were reported as supplying much encouragement and support. Professors/instructors/coaches, school teachers, colleagues and friends were also seen as encouragers. Both groups of women identified the same five factors as being most detrimental to their careers: stereotypical attitudes of others, being female, children, availability of childcare, and parents' socioeconomic status. Findings are discussed in the light of the available research literature, and implications for educating gifted females are proposed.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it