Gender-Inclusive Practices in Campus Women’s and Gender Centers: Benefits, Challenges, and Future Prospects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Women’s and gender centers have provided a home for feminist activism, education, and empowerment on the college campus since the 1970s. Recently, some women’s and gender centers have undertaken practices of gender inclusion—expanding their missions and programming to include cisgender men and trans* people of all genders. This exploratory study sought to document these practices and to give voice to the challenges and benefits that centers derive from including those who do not identify as women in their work. Twenty professional staff at campus-based women’s and gender centers were interviewed for this study. Participants described how they are enacting gender inclusivity and named the benefits of bringing people of all genders into the work of advancing gender equity on campus, such as increased numbers of students actively participating in the center’s work and broadening the dialogue on women’s issues. Challenges included an ongoing need to protect women’s space for empowerment and the stress of an increased workload due to expanded programming. Overall, participants were positively inclined toward gender inclusion and felt it represented new and exciting possibilities for coalitional awareness and change on campus.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".