Gender Differences in the Sketch Map Creation Process
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
Abstract Gender differences in navigation and mapping skills have long been noted in past research. Females tend to use landmarks for navigation while males favour paths and co-ordinate systems. Similar findings are found in sketch maps, where landmarks are prevalent on female maps and males draw more paths. Although the type and quantity of map elements give an indication of gender differences, there is potential for further insights to emerge from analysis of the process or sequence in which map elements are drawn. The sequence provides detail on when in the drawing process gender differences or similarities in map elements arise. This study found that in the initial drawing of the map, there were few gender difference in the number of landmarks and paths drawn. However, females drew a larger proportion of landmarks and males drew more paths from 10% to 25% into the drawing process. Thereon until half way through, no statistical differences were found. Differences were seen again in the last half of the drawing process. Overall, females drew more landmarks and paths than men, but the difference lay in when clusters of these map elements were drawn.
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