Gender Equity in Physics Education: Modeling a Future for Canadian Physics Education Research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this early-stage study is to determine if and how Canada’s physics education researchers are working to solve the problem of women’s underrepresentation in physics education, and to develop an expert opinion-based model for institutions to address gender equity issues in physics education (at all levels). The study will: 1) identify physics education practices that physics education research (PER) experts have found to be supportive of gender equity; 2) identify Canada’s PER experts and their research focuses; (3) conduct a Delphi study with Canada’s PER experts to gain consensus on how PER can inform and support gender equity in physics education; and (4) develop a model to guide ongoing PER in Canada to support the achievement of gender equity in physics education. Results of preliminary phases of the study include emergent themes from interviews with international PER experts on gender-equitable physics education practices and initial descriptions of the landscape of PER in Canada. These are based on content analysis of online biographies for all individuals working in Physics or Education departments across all Canadian universities. The presentation aims to generate discussion on these results and the proceeding phases of the study.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".