MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2086335152 · doi:10.1177/0020715207088587

An Index of Pro-Woman Nation-States

2008· article· en· W2086335152 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Christine A. Wernet

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Comparative Sociology · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Policy and Reform Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLife expectancyIndex (typography)AbortionPolitical scienceRanking (information retrieval)Demographic economicsEconomic growthTotal fertility ratePopulationSociologyDemographyEconomicsResearch methodologyFamily planning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pro-woman nation-states need to be identified because these states may help diminish traditional gender roles and gender stratification by providing structural opportunities for women (Wang, 2004; Wernet et al., 2005). Comparative, country-level data on multiple domains, such as female life expectancy, low fertility rates, education levels, the legal status of abortion, the percent of women in public life, female labor force participation, and family leave policies, are gathered from the Population Reference Bureau (1998) and the International Labor Organization (1997). This article explores the differential access that people in 39 countries have to the aforementioned rights and privileges in order to identify which countries have policies that are the most beneficial for women by ranking pro-woman nation-states in a comparative index.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0070.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.115
GPT teacher head0.449
Teacher spread0.334 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Comparative SociologySame topicSocial Policy and Reform StudiesFrench-language works237,207