Bibliographic record
Abstract
The topic of discussion is a disturbing one. What Women's Studies offer men sounds quarter mocking and quarter serious, quarter threatening and quarter caring. Does the topic promise a move away from separatism in scholarship among women's studies advocates or is the topic a trap set by wise women to test the waters of the backlash against feminism? Is this discussion panel a set-up to trip some wannabe men and flare them or is it a genuine attempt to explore what men want from women's studies? Who gives a thus what men want from women anyway? If this is a genuine press conference by the Women's Studies Party on their electoral program, how come the experts, the front-runners, the women's studies gurus, the women, are not the ones telling us chauvinist pigs what we are missing by not listening to women's studies? Here we are, three men, saying what we think that women's studies offer men when it could be said that we have not got a clue what is the definition of women's studies.
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 | 0.027 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.025 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.011 |
| 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 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".