MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2156939169 · doi:10.1177/1050651902016001002

Gender and Modes of Collaboration in an Engineering Classroom

2002· article· en· W2156939169 on OpenAlexaff
Sandra Ingram, Anne Parker

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Business and Technical Communication · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender Diversity and Inequality
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPerspective (graphical)PsychologyQualitative researchSocial psychologyTeamworkPedagogyApplied psychologySociologyPolitical scienceSocial scienceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Research suggests that men and women have different communicative styles that contribute to women's lack of acceptance in male-dominated fields. However, this perspective can lead to stereotypes that limit the range of interactional strategies open to individuals. This article profiles two women from student engineering teams who participated in a study on collaboration and the role of gender. The study, which used a qualitative approach to data collection and analysis, showed that men and women alike displayed both gender-linked and non-gender-linked behavior. It also showed that successful collaboration was influenced less by gender and more by such factors as a strong work ethic, team commitment, and effective leadership.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.608
Threshold uncertainty score0.119

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.112
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.196 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations30
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Business and Technical CommunicationSame topicGender Diversity and InequalityFrench-language works237,207