MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2949506383 · doi:10.1063/1.5110156

Negotiating a career in physics

2019· article· en· W2949506383 on OpenAlexaff
Arundhati Dasgupta

Bibliographic record

VenueAIP conference proceedings · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInternational Science and Diplomacy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Lethbridge
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNegotiationEngineering ethicsComputer scienceSociologyEngineeringSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Equal opportunities exist for women seeking careers in physics, according to paper policies all over the world. However, social biases and prejudices might influence career trajectories of women differently than men. I shall describe some anecdotal examples from an individual’s perspective which might be symptomatic of social patterns and suggest some remedies/changes to ameliorate and overcome the barriers.

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 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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Incentives · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.994
Threshold uncertainty score0.065

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0170.008
Scholarly communication0.0060.005
Open science0.0010.008
Research integrity0.0030.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0200.003

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.277 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designQualitative
DomainIncentives
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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAIP conference proceedingsSame topicInternational Science and DiplomacyFrench-language works237,207