Moving gender from margin to center in environmental education
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
For the past 30 years or so, a small group of environmental education scholars have attended to gender and promoted feminist theories and methodologies (e.g., Barrett,2005; Barron,1995; Davies,2013; DiChiro,1987; Fawcett,2000; Fontes,2002; Gough,1999a,1999b,2004; Gough & Whitehouse,2003;Gray,2016; Hallen,2000; Harvester & Blenkinsop, 2010; Li,2007; Lloro-Bidart,2016; Martusewicz,2013; McKenzie,2004,2005; Newbery,2003; Russell & Bell,1996; Russell & Semenko,2016; Sakellari & Skanavis,2013; Storey, DaCruz & Camargo,1998; Stovall, Baker-Sperry, & Dallinger,2015; Wane & Chandler,2002; Warren,1996; Whitehouse,2012; Whitehouse & Taylor,1996).1Historically, this scholarship has remained somewhat on the margins of the field (A.Gough,2013,in press; Russell &Fawcett,2013), however, it is time for renewal. This special issue of The Journal of Environmental Education is devoted to the topic of gender and environmental education. The issue brings together an international group of scholars who share a common dedication to promoting social equity and gender equality in environmental education and beyond. Including research reports, theoretical inquiry, autobiographical explorations, and creative assemblages, collectively the articles demonstrate the exciting possibilities that come with bringing gender from margin to center (see hooks,1984).
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it