MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2124666191 · doi:10.1177/0959353501011002010

Feminist Issues in Research Methodology: The Development of a Cognitive Scale

2001· article· en· W2124666191 on OpenAlexaff
Donna Akman, Brenda B. Toner, Noreen Stuckless, Alisha Ali, Shelagh Emmott, Fiona Downie

Bibliographic record

VenueFeminism & Psychology · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicObesity and Health Practices
Canadian institutionsWomen's College HospitalUniversity of TorontoCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFeminismFeminist philosophySociologyField (mathematics)Subject (documents)EpistemologyEngineering ethicsPoliticsScale (ratio)CognitionPsychologyGender studiesComputer sciencePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Feminist research methodology is a subject that is often under wide debate, with both theorists and researchers offering various guidelines for conducting feminist research. Current writings in the field suggest that feminist research is moving towards pluralistic models that acknowledge and take into account the fact that feminism is not monolithic in its politics or philosophy. However, a review of the literature suggests that, within this pluralistic framework, there are some common principles of feminist research that cut across the different methodologies used in social science. The focus of this article is to discuss these common principles of feminist research and illustrate how they guided the development of a cognitive scale for functional bowel disorders.

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)0.369
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.424
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.631
Threshold uncertainty score0.778

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.3690.424
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0080.008
Science and technology studies0.0060.044
Scholarly communication0.0120.015
Open science0.0050.009
Research integrity0.0040.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.642
GPT teacher head0.686
Teacher spread0.043 · 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designBench or experimental
DomainMethods
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

Citations16
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFeminism & PsychologySame topicObesity and Health PracticesFrench-language works237,207