La présence des femmes philosophes dans les collections monographiques des bibliothèques universitaires montréalaises.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Les femmes sont sous-représentées en philosophie. Dans cet article, je me demande si cette sous-représentation se répercute dans les collections monographiques des quatre bibliothèques universitaires montréalaises, anglophones et francophones, que sont l’Université Concordia, l’Université McGill, l’Université de Montréal et l’Université du Québec à Montréal. La présence des femmes philosophes dans les collections monographiques générales des universités montréalaises est ici analysée à l’aide de deux méthodologies : l’évaluation par liste et l’évaluation systématique stratifiée. Les avantages et limitations de chaque méthode sont discutés. Notamment, les différentes options des interfaces des catalogues, les différences entre les départements de philosophie desservis et les bibliothèques elles-mêmes causent des variations ne permettant pas une comparaison juste entre les collections monographiques. Comme résultats, il est tout de même possible de discerner que les femmes philosophes, à quelques exceptions près, sont sévèrement sous-représentées, comme auteures de monographies, et leurs œuvres, comme objets d’études. Selon mon échantillon, les femmes ne représentent pas le quart des auteures de monographies disponibles dans les collections étudiées. Cette recherche, exploratoire par son originalité et sa taille, révèle déjà un besoin criant de mise en valeur des femmes philosophes par leur promotion et l’acquisition de leurs œuvres et de leurs commentateurs. Des études parallèles dans le monde des sciences me permettent de croire qu’une présence accrue de femmes en philosophie participera à renverser cette situation. Women are under-represented in philosophy. In this article, I attempt to investigate if this under-representation is also present in the monograph collections of four English- and French-language academic libraries in Montreal: Concordia University, McGill University, Université de Montréal and Université du Québec à Montréal. The inclusion of women philosophers in the general monograph collections at Montreal universities is analyzed using two methodologies: evaluation by list and stratified systematic evaluation. The advantages and limitations of each method are discussed. Among others, different catalogue interface options, differences between philosophy departments served and the libraries themselves cause variations that do not allow a fair comparison between monograph collections. Results still show that women philosophers, with a few exceptions, are severely under-represented as monograph authors and their works as objects of study. Based on my sample, women represent less than one quarter of the monograph authors available in the collections that were examined. This research, which is exploratory due to its originality and scope, reveals an overwhelming need to highlight women philosophers by promoting and acquiring their works along with commentaries of these. Similar studies done in the field of science lead me to believe that an increased presence of women in philosophy will help to reverse this situation.
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 | 0.006 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.027 | 0.004 |
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".