MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3127781555 · doi:10.1162/leon_a_01985

<i>Women With Impact</i>: Taking <i>One Small Step</i> into the Universe

2021· article· en· W3127781555 on OpenAlexaff
Bettina Forget

Bibliographic record

VenueLeonardo · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicSpace exploration and regulation
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImpact craterCitizen journalismUniverseVisual artsAstrobiologyComputer scienceArtAstronomyPhysicsWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Out of 1,578 cataloged and named craters on the Moon, only 32 are named after women. That is a scant 2%. To highlight the underrepresentation of women in science, the author created two connected art projects. The initial project, Women With Impact, is a series of drawings of Moon craters named after women. Building on this oeuvre is One Small Step, a participatory project that invites prominent female astronomers to perform a meditative walk while wearing 3D-printed shoe soles that create a small Moon crater with each step.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.066

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0090.005
Scholarly communication0.0060.005
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0200.004

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.212 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations2
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLeonardoSame topicSpace exploration and regulationFrench-language works237,207