Fast Forward: changing attitudes and experiences for women in photography (Impact)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fast Forward progresses the work of women as photographers, addressing the global underrepresentation and disadvantage of women in this field. Impact is in three areas: \n \nChanges in the policies and practices of museums, galleries, collections and festivals, including Tate, the National Portrait Gallery, LagosPhoto and the Hyman Collection. The latter has introduced a gender-equal collecting policy as a direct result of Fast Forward. Beneficiaries are the institutions, their audiences and the artists they represent. \n \nChanges in the representation of women photographers in photographic media. Fast Forward has led or contributed to ‘women-only’ special issues of five photo-industry periodicals, rebalancing the gendered bias of such media and benefitting its audiences and the artists represented. \n \nChanges in the support opportunities available to women photographers. The project has provided networking and mentoring, benefitting established and aspiring women photographers. New organisations, the Old Girls’ Club (UK) and Feminist Photography Network (Canada), have been established in direct emulation of Fast Forward
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".