Bibliographic record
Abstract
The under-representation of women in engineering is a well-known phenomenon.This study explores the potential role of university experiences in derailing the journey of would-be female engineers, focusing on how engineering school may socialize women in ways that discourage them from the field.Semi-structured interviews with 16 female Ontario university undergraduate engineering students were conducted and were analyzed from a feminist epistemological standpoint, privileging the experiences and voices of participants.Organizational socialization, gender socialization, and social identity theories guided the identification of important themes and issues.Results suggest that women are receiving information pertaining to the proficiencies, people, politics, and organizational goals and values of this space, potentially shaping their self-and field-based perceptions in negative ways.Many participants expressed pessimistic views about engineering, and often alluded to and discussed sexism.Some women also expressed feelings of visibility, discomfort, and/or feeling "unsafe".The normalization of gender-based (mis)treatment via interactions with peers and role models may foreshadow women's future careers in engineering.
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 | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".