MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2904736647 · doi:10.5206/tips.v8i1.6215

Gender Bias in the Classroom: Strategies for Instructors that Tackle Sexism and Gender Bias

2018· article· en· W2904736647 on OpenAlex

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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueTeaching Innovation Projects · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender Diversity and Inequality
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGender biasContext (archaeology)PsychologyGender discriminationSpace (punctuation)Gender disparityGender equalityLearning environmentMathematics educationSocial psychologyGender studiesSociologyComputer scienceGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sexism and gender bias can be a common experience for women on university campuses. Facing these types of discrimination has been shown to result in negative academic outcomes, a reduction in the satisfaction of academic pursuits, and lowered self-confidence in female students (Logel et al., 2009; Morris & Daniel, 2008). Within this climate, course instructors are well poised to be part of the solution by creating and fostering an inclusive space in their classrooms. This interactive workshop focuses on promoting a gender inclusive learning environment within the university classroom context. Participants will learn to describe the effects of gender bias on female students, to identify sexism and gender bias in their many forms, and to apply a range of strategies to create and promote an inclusive classroom environment.

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 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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.465
Threshold uncertainty score0.863

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.482
GPT teacher head0.395
Teacher spread0.087 · 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