The Status of Women in the Historical Profession in Canada: Results of 1998 Survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article is a summary of a ‘Report on the Status of Women in the Historical Profession in Canada,’ completed in 1999 with the support of die Canadian Historical Association. The Report is based on the results of a survey conducted in 1998 with female and male faculty in Canadian departments of history. It also establishes comparisons with the results of a similar survey completed in 1989 by Professor Linda Kealey, thus allowing for an examination of the continuity and change in the status of Canadian women historians over the last decade. Abstract: Cet article est un sommaire du Rapport sur le statut de la femme dans la profession d’historienne au Canada, rapport acheve en 1999 grace au soutien de la Societe historique du Canada. Le rapport s’appuie sur les resultats d’une enquete menee en 1998 aupres du corps professoral masculin et feminin dans les departements ďhistoire au Canada. Il etablit de plus des comparaisons avec les resultats ďune enquete similaire menee en 1989 par la professeure Linda Kealey, ce qui permet ďapprecier la continuite et le changement dans le statut des historiennes canadiennes au cours de la derniere decennie.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".