MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3207114975 · doi:10.1021/acs.jchemed.1c00485

Toward Sustained Cultural Change through Chemistry Graduate Student Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Communities

2021· article· en· W3207114975 on OpenAlexaff
Jacky M. Deng, Leah E. McMunn, Meagan S. Oakley, Hoang T. Dang, Rebeca S. Rodriguez

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Chemical Education · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEvaluation of Teaching Practices
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEquity (law)Inclusion (mineral)Diversity (politics)SociologyCultural diversityChemistryCultural capitalGender equityGraduate studentsPublic relationsPedagogyPolitical sciencePsychologySocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Evidence from the past several decades has repeatedly found that the chemical enterprise presents systemic barriers for people with marginalized identities. Initiatives and actions that remove systemic barriers and support the success of all students, especially those from equity-deserving groups, are essential. However, fostering a culture of inclusion requires actions that focus on not only immediate outcomes but also sustained and lasting impacts. Chemistry graduate student communities focused on diversity, equity, inclusion, and respect (DEIR) can contribute to the transformation of our shared chemistry community into one where DEIR principles are foundational. Chemistry graduate student DEIR communities (CGDEIRCs) are learning communities in which students from equity-deserving groups in chemistry gain various forms of cultural wealth that support their attainment of cultural capital. By supporting students’ development of skills, networks, and resources to attain success, over time, CGDEIRCs may contribute to both short- and long-term DEIR cultural shifts in the broader chemistry community.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.083
Threshold uncertainty score0.883

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.007
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.391
GPT teacher head0.522
Teacher spread0.131 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations10
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Chemical EducationSame topicEvaluation of Teaching PracticesFrench-language works237,207