MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2918136568 · doi:10.1007/s11948-019-00097-0

Solutions to Gender Balance in STEM Fields Through Support, Training, Education and Mentoring: Report of the International Women in Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering Task Group

2019· article· en· W2918136568 on OpenAlexaff
Gilda A. Barabino, Monique Frize, Fatimah Ibrahim, Eleni Kaldoudi, Lenka Lhotská, Loredana G. Marcu, Magdalena Stoeva, Virginia Tsapaki, Eva Bezak

Bibliographic record

VenueScience and Engineering Ethics · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDiversity and Career in Medicine
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTask (project management)Balance (ability)Gender balanceWork (physics)Women in sciencePhilosophy of scienceMedical educationWork–life balanceWorking groupEngineering ethicsMedicinePolitical scienceEngineeringSociologyMechanical engineeringPhysical therapyLawGender studiesSystems engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex
No abstract in any covered source. Its absence is recorded, not treated as a negative.

No abstract. This is not a gap in this database; OpenAlex has none either. 23.3% of the frame is in this state, and the screen finds HALF as much metaresearch here, so the absence is a measured bias rather than a missing field.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmaMetaresearch
Domain: Incentives · Genre: Review
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Not applicablelow
gptMetaresearch
Domain: Incentives · Genre: Commentary
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Theoretical or conceptualmedium
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.027
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.032
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Incentives · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.973
Threshold uncertainty score0.143

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0270.032
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0090.004
Scholarly communication0.0060.003
Open science0.0020.011
Research integrity0.0050.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.055
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.266 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

Metaresearch

The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.

Study designNot applicable · Theoretical or conceptual
DomainIncentives
GenreReview · Commentary

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

Citations42
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueScience and Engineering EthicsSame topicDiversity and Career in MedicineCategoryMetaresearchFrench-language works237,207