Do We Judge Fiction by the Author’s Gender?
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. Female authors of fiction often perceive themselves to be undervalued in relation to their male counterparts. What is not clear is whether this preference for male authors comes from readers or publishers. Two pre-registered studies examined how university students evaluated book passages attributed to either male or female authors, and investigated whether negative evaluations of romance novels are based on their association with women. In Study 1, participants read identical passages attributed to either male or female authors and evaluated them. Study 2 extended this work by adding attributions of genre: either romance or literary fiction. Linear mixed-effects modeling and Bayesian analyses were employed to analyze these data. Study 1 demonstrated little preference for books attributed to males over females and Bayesian analyses confirmed support for the null in most cases. The results of Study 2 similarly suggested that author gender and genre attributions do not have a strong influence on evaluations.
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 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 | 0.003 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 it