MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2250039455

Women in a Transitioning Canadian Resource Town

2008· article· en· W2250039455 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Colleen M. McLeod, Alice J. Hovorka

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of rural and community development · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicRural development and sustainability
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDivision of labourResource (disambiguation)Variety (cybernetics)SociologyWork (physics)Natural resourceUnpaid workEveryday lifeGender studiesEconomic growthPolitical scienceEconomics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper builds on previous studies of women’s role in and experiences of natural resource-dependent communities in Canada, which demonstrate that women have limited opportunities and negative experiences in these locales. It investigates women’s spaces of employment and experiences of everyday life in High Level, Alberta. Preliminary insights reveal that formal employment opportunities for women are increasing in both number and variety, and women’s experiences in this community are overwhelmingly positive. Further, women are fostering positive connections to place through their multiple roles in employment, personal, and civic realms. It is noted that such circumstances are enveloped within a traditional gender division of labour such that the work spaces opening up are largely contained within the tertiary sector and female-dominated jobs. As such, economic transition alone in Canadian resource towns is not enough to address issues of gender inequity.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.048
Threshold uncertainty score0.000

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0390.007
Scholarly communication0.0040.001
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.196
Teacher spread0.176 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations14
Published2008
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of rural and community developmentSame topicRural development and sustainabilityFrench-language works237,207