MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2786165166 · doi:10.15353/joci.v13i3.3395

Empowerment of women through an innovative e-mentoring community platform: implications and lessons learned

2017· article· en· W2786165166 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Antigoni Parmaxi, Christina Vasiliou, Andri Ioannou, Christiana Kouta

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Community Informatics · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicImpact of Technology on Adolescents
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUnited Nations Development Programme
KeywordsEmpowermentGlass ceilingPublic relationsPoliticsProcess (computing)InformaticsSociologyPolitical scienceMedical educationMedicineComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article presents an overview of an e-mentoring community platform that intends to promote women’s empowerment. Women face the so-called glass ceiling effect, the barrier that keeps them from rising to the upper rungs of the corporate ladder, regardless of their qualifications or achievements. We aim to eliminate the stereotypical profile of women as excluded from economic, political, and professional life and promote women’s empowerment, equality, and social coherence. To this aim, we aspire to develop Womenpower, an innovative e-mentoring community platform that intends to link women mentors and mentees in the areas of academia, business, and healthcare. Given the nature of this endeavor, there is a need to approach the development of the e-mentoring platform as a horizontal process and democratize the design, allowing for different perspectives of stakeholders to be heard and determine the design decisions. This article delineates the approach adopted for democratizing the design process and maximizing intended users’ involvement in the development process. Finally, we conclude with implications for researchers and practitioners in Community Informatics and recommendations for promoting the participation of women in the fields of academia, business, and healthcare.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.106
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0060.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.156
GPT teacher head0.434
Teacher spread0.278 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designQualitative
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

Citations5
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Community InformaticsSame topicImpact of Technology on AdolescentsFrench-language works237,207