MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2278811611

Academic Motherhood: "Silver Linings and Clouds"

2015· article· en· W2278811611 on OpenAlexaffabout
Brittany A. E. Jakubiec

Bibliographic record

VenueAntistasis · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender Diversity and Inequality
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Prince Edward Island
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGender studiesDominance (genetics)SociologyHigher educationFeminismPsychologyPolitical scienceLaw
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Historically speaking, men dominated the university sphere and women were not typically present in academic positions (Ward & Wolf-Wendel, 2012). The dominance of male academics lead to gendered norms and expectations that influence academic life presently (Jakubiec, 2015). Today, more women are entering into higher education as students and as professors; however, sexism and gendered notions about women have not been eradicated (Rhoads & Rhoads, 2012). Further, it is especially difficult for women who are mothers to succeed, get promoted, and achieve tenure. For example, women (more so than men) have reported that parenthood and childbearing are main barriers in their attainment of full professorship (Sanders, Willemson, & Millar, 2009). In fact, Dryfhout and Estes (2010) found that professors who were women were 30% less likely to have attained tenured faculty positions, and were also more likely to have intentions to leave the academic profession. Thus, the impacts of having children on an academic career may be greater for women then it is for men. Thus, what can be said for the state of academic motherhood in Atlantic Canadian universities?

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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 score0.512
Threshold uncertainty score0.982

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0130.028
Scholarly communication0.0070.005
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.201
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.153 · 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

Citations4
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAntistasisSame topicGender Diversity and InequalityFrench-language works237,207