MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2977556879 · doi:10.22230/src.2018v9n1a275

Working toward Gender Parity in the Canadian Journal of History / Annales canadiennes d’histoire

2018· article· en· W2977556879 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Rilla Friesen

Bibliographic record

VenueScholarly and Research Communication · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHistorical Gender and Feminism Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsParity (physics)HistoryLibrary scienceComputer sciencePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This research note includes anonymized data on our article authors, peer reviewers, and book reviewers, and the steps we are taking to work toward gender parity in the Canadian Journal of History/Annales canadiennes d’histoire. We conclude that reaching gender parity in an academic publication requires dedicated record-keeping and editorial commitment.

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)0.078
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.168
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Incentives · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.958
Threshold uncertainty score0.772

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0780.168
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0140.015
Science and technology studies0.0610.032
Scholarly communication0.0420.010
Open science0.0030.012
Research integrity0.0030.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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 head0.325
GPT teacher head0.398
Teacher spread0.073 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScholarly and Research CommunicationSame topicHistorical Gender and Feminism StudiesFrench-language works237,207