Stem-Professional Women’s Exclusion in the Canadian Space Industry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STEM-Professional Women's Exclusion in the Canadian Space Industry: Anchor Points and Intersectionality at the Margins of Space showcases the how' of exclusion of STEM-professional women from management and executive positions. It examines the discourses and power-relations surrounding these STEM-professional women's identities, drawing on and reworking the concept of anchor points to investigate their relationship to structural, discursive, and socio-psychological processes. By utilizing the critical sensemaking (CSM) framework, the book provides an avenue to surface the ephemeral identities of STEM-professional women, and investigate their relationship with the meta-rules, rules, and social values of the Canadian space industry. It also considers the potential for social change across this industry by considering the responsibilities of cisgender men with respect to addressing and resisting the systemic discrimination of STEM-professional women in the industry. Specific sites for micro-political resistances that these STEM-professional women could enact are considered and suggested. This book will appeal to researchers and scholars focused on gender and diversity, intersectionality scholarship, and poststructuralist intersectional feminism
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".