Some room for us: Women in academia as seen through the lives of Canada’s Eliza Ritchie (1856-1933) and Spain’s María Goyri (1873-1954)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper explores the experience of women in academia by looking both back and at the present. We consider two women who searched for and found academic accomplishment. Together, they serve as representatives of a new way of living for women in the late-19th and early-20th centuries. Eliza Ritchie (1856-1933) from Canada and María Goyri (1873-1954) from Spain are exemplars of the emerging contributions of women in the academy as part of the changing role for women in Western culture and the need for women to support each other in shared feminist causes. These women shared the same time period, the same intellectual values, the same commitment to scholarship, and the same incredible determination to help develop a modern society that could embrace the full incorporation of women. This paper considers their accomplishments in light of academia today in both Canada and Spain in regards to the advancement of women. It also examines some lingering inequalities in terms of tenure and promotion, salary, research capacity, administrative and leadership positions. Such an international collaboration contributes to the shared sense of sisterhood for women in academia today.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.068 | 0.058 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".