Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the 1950s, American women in general, and female college students in particular, confronted different sets of cultural assumptions, or ideologies, relevant to their aspirations and behaviour. Perhaps the best-known of these was an ideology in which it was assumed that female college students were not interested in their studies and were primarily concerned with nding a husband. An examination of the cohort that entered the Connecticut College for Women in 1959 reveals that some students were indeed concerned with marriage; however, a large minority did not know what they wanted. In addition, many students were keenly interested in their studies, wanted to do well, and aspired to careers. These ndings indicate that rather than forming a homogeneous group, the students at Connecticut College did not t a common 1950s stereotype of female students in American colleges. RÉSUMÉ Dans les années 1950, les femmes américaines et les collégiennes, en particulier, furent confrontées à différentes manières de penser ou idéologies ayant trait à leurs aspirations et à leur conduite. Parmi les plus courantes, un préjugé voulait que les collégiennes n’étaient pas inté- ressées par leurs études, mais plutôt par la recherche d’un mari. Une analyse de la cohorte qui entra au Connecticut College for Women en 1959 révèle que certaines étudiantes étaient, en effet, préoccupées par le mariage ; cependant, une minorité importante ne savait pas ce qu’elle voulait. En outre, plusieurs étudiantes furent vraiment intéressées par leurs études, voulaient réussir et aspiraient à une carrière. Ces résultats indiquent que plutôt que de former un groupe homogène, les élèves du Connecticut College ne répondaient pas au stéréotype des années 1950 concernant les collégiennes américaines.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".