MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Women in Geography

2017· other· en· W2943146804 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Encyclopedia of Geography · 2017
Typeother
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHistorical Geography and Geographical Thought
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHegemonyGender studiesRepresentation (politics)White (mutation)Cultural geographyGeographySociologyHuman geographySocial sciencePolitical scienceLawPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although women have a long history in the discipline of geography, dating from the nineteenth century, they did not move into it in significant numbers until the 1980s. Questions about the representation of women in the discipline are starting to move from a concern with overall numbers vis‐à‐vis men to the chronic underrepresentation of women of color. Institutions representing women started to emerge in the 1970s, and a number of types of organization now serve the professional interests of women and promote gender‐based and feminist research. Their presence is geographically uneven and replicates that of women in the discipline, being well established in the Anglo‐American heartlands and more sporadic elsewhere. While the future for some women in Anglo‐America – those who are white, middle‐class, able‐bodied, and English‐speaking – seems certain, the possibility of a future of women in geography being racialized is much more uncertain. For those women outside Anglo‐America, issues of English‐language hegemony also dominate.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.682
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.268 · 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