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 OpenAlex
Donna Akman, Brenda B. Toner, Noreen Stuckless, Alisha Ali, Shelagh Emmott, Fiona Downie

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.019
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.453
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0190.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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.

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