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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Using a systematic search strategy, this paper reviews the literature about gender and cycling and critically assesses existing approaches to study the topic. Most studies use a binary conceptualization of gender, a cross‐sectional research design, and quantitative analysis to examine male–female differences in cycling behaviours, stated concerns, correlates, and barriers. The two hypotheses at the centre of most of this work are (1) that women cycle less than men due to greater safety concerns and (2) that women cycle less, or at least use bicycles differently than men, because of their more complex travel patterns that arise from greater household responsibilities. While the literature draws attention toward travel characteristics, it often relies on a simple binary conceptualization of gender. In doing so, it identifies differences in male–female cycling patterns, but it rarely sheds light on the gendered processes underlying these differences. In this paper, we argue that research into cycling as a form of mobility could be strengthened by engaging with feminist theories such as performativity, intersectionality, and embodiment to advance a more nuanced understanding of how gender and other axes of identity are intertwined with cycling.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it