READING WOMEN'S HISTORY: ROUNDTABLE DISCUSSION ABOUT SCHOLARSHIP ON WOMEN'S HISTORY IN THE AMERICAS, Institute for the Study of the Americas, London, 4 November 2011
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
Fifteen of us gathered at the Institute for the Study of the Americas (ISA) for this roundtable discussion. We came from universities across the country, including Birmingham, Brunel, Cambridge, Manchester, Nottingham and a whole host of London institutions. Participants represented every stage of academic life from postgraduate onwards. The geographical focus of our research interests ranged widely, from Russian America and Canada in the north to the Caribbean and Latin America further south. This broad coverage of the various regions that comprise ‘the Americas’ is central to the vision of both of the event's organizers, the Society for the History of Women in the Americas (SHAW) and ISA. The roundtable was the first time that the two have worked together and we hope that it marks the start of a long and fruitful relationship. The Society for the History of Women in the Americas (SHAW – formerly known as British Historians of Women in the Americas) is a scholarly organization with two key aims. The first is to provide an arena in which scholars interested in women's and gender history in the Americas can come together. Secondly, we hope to encourage interdisciplinary and transnational approaches in research on women and gender in North America, South America and the Caribbean. The roundtable was the third SHAW event of the year. It provided an opportunity to reflect on existing scholarship related to the field of women's and gender history in the Americas, broadly defined. The emphasis on historiography enabled us to think about what we've read, why it's important and where we can go from here.
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 | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 it