MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2993885192 · doi:10.7202/1065959ar

Cultivating Knowledge about Canadian Women Scientists through Seminars, Objects, and Exhibitions

2019· article· en· W2993885192 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Cindy Stelmackowich

Bibliographic record

VenueScientia Canadensis Canadian Journal of the History of Science Technology and Medicine · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicInterdisciplinary Research and Collaboration
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExhibitionHerbariumSociologyLibrary scienceVisual artsMedia studiesEngineering ethicsSocial scienceArtEngineeringComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Exhibtion research and development can be an innovative way to cultivate new knowledge in university classrooms. This article describes a Carleton University seminar that incorporated collections-based research to study Canadian women scientists. Entitled “Representations of Women’s Scientific Contributions,” the seminar gave students the opportunity to apply feminist critiques to the material cultures of science as they wrote the cultural histories of scientific objects related to the women they studied. The seminar culiminated in HERbarium, a well-receieved exhibition at the Carleton Univeristy Art Gallery in 2017.

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 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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.699
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0050.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.015
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.295 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
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

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScientia Canadensis Canadian Journal of the History of Science Technology and MedicineSame topicInterdisciplinary Research and CollaborationFrench-language works237,207