MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2612702284 · doi:10.1139/cjp-2016-0576

Current status and a novel framework to attract Pakistani women in physics

2017· article· en· W2612702284 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
M Jabeen, M. Tayyeb Javed

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Physics · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBiomedical and Engineering Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCensusPhysicsPosition (finance)PopulationEconomic growthIndex (typography)EntrepreneurshipPolitical scienceSociologyBusinessDemographyEconomicsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pakistan is the sixth most populous country in the world, with a population of over 180 million people. It is reported in the 1998 census the sex ratio (male per 100 female) is 108.5 and the literacy ratio (education of above 10 years) is 43.92%. Population under 15 years is 43.4% and between 15 and 65 years is 53.09%. Keeping in view the current reforms and vision of “one nation – one vision” there is growing interest in developing programs to make Pakistan listed in top 25 economies by 2025. The social barriers faced by female scientists in their professional career are discussed in this paper. The opportunities for an exciting career in physics in particular for women are discussed. A degree in engineering physics as proposed in the paper could make the subject more attractive and may help in improving the position of Pakistan in the Global Innovation Index. This paper also presents the current status of women in physics and is aimed to attract women taking physics as a profession to bring innovation and thus promoting entrepreneurship in Pakistan to achieve the vision by 2025.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.082

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0110.003
Scholarly communication0.0070.004
Open science0.0020.006
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0250.005

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.238 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of PhysicsSame topicBiomedical and Engineering EducationFrench-language works237,207