Narrating the Field of Communication Through Some Female Voices: Women’s Experiences and Stories in Academia
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 The field of communication has been constructed through primarily masculinized stories, such as the myth of the “founding fathers,” a situation that has tended to exclude the views and figures of female researchers. This article tries to remedy this by recovering the voices of women via eight in-depth interviews among prominent researchers (second-generation, 1960s–1970s) from Australia, Brazil, Canada, France, Italy, the UK, and the US. The results illustrate the inequality, sexual harassment, lack of legitimacy, and stereotypes faced by these women, and their strong emotional leadership. Their stories of success show how academia is a field of struggle where hegemony, domination, and resistance coexist. However, female experiences in academia are diverse and complex. That is why the article concludes with the need to continue tracking the stories of so many different women as knowing subjects, as well as the challenges of intersectionality in the epistemological construction of the field.
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 | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it