MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Trends in authorship by women at Canadian universities 2006 to 2019

2021· article· en· W4200488284 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Information and Library Science · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender Politics and Representation
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersUniversity of Waterloo
KeywordsBibliometricsGender disparityDiversity (politics)Gender diversityGender biasGender gapInstitutionMetadataAcademic institutionLibrary sciencePolitical scienceSocial scienceSociologyDemographyPsychologyDemographic economicsCorporate governanceSocial psychologyManagementComputer scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Despite much progress since the mid-20th century, there still exists a disparity in the number of female academics relative to their male colleagues. This gender gap has come under increased focus as universities take steps to foster diversity and inclusiveness. Bibliometrics can provide a window into the gender disparity in research by measuring the metadata of academic publications. By determining the ratio of female to male authors, the gender bias at the level of the institution can be quantified. This study examines the proportion of female authors of academic articles at thirty Canadian universities across five broad fields of research.

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.536
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.003
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.228 · 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