MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4229612650 · doi:10.18260/1-2--15421

Cinderella Project

2020· article· en· W4229612650 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Teresa Sappington, Emma Seiler

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEngineering Education and Pedagogy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDanceBeautyVisual artsOutreachYesterdaySubject matterArt historyEngineeringSociologyArtAestheticsPedagogyCurriculumLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cinderella -Modern ParityAt the stroke of midnight, Cinderella realized she must go.She raced down the long castle staircase."Don't fall, don't trip," she kept repeating to herself.Oh, how fun it was to dance with a prince, a real prince.But, oh, how her feet hurt.Was this the true price of beauty?Just as she realized the impossibility of running in glass high heels, one hung on a crack in the step.As the clock kept clanging, she quickly removed the other shoe and raced on into the night. Once upon a time…The Cinderella Project grew from a shoe project done in the World Images of Science and Engineering for Women (WISE Women) summer program at Mississippi State University.The original project used cardstock, glue, and other materials to construct a model tennis shoe.However, the girls would often construct sandals, wedges or heeled shoes.The not so revolutionary discovery was that girls are interested in girls' shoes.In a discussion with those involved with outreach to girls and women, it was decided that a whole project could be built around this concept of creating engineering activities specifically for girls.This is based on the first principle of C. Rogers' experiential learning theory, which is: "Significant learning takes place when the subject matter is relevant to the personal interests of the student" [1].Therefore, engineering outreach activities that are designed for girls will be more effective in attracting them to the field of engineering.Who decided that shoes were cool?Shoes are such an important part of our history that several American museums have hosted shoe exhibits.France, Germany, and Canada even have shoe museums.Early civilizations recognized the importance of protecting feet against jagged rocks, burning sand, and rugged terrain.Records of the Egyptians, the Chinese and even the Bible contain references to shoes.The first shoes were a simple piece of plaited grass or rawhide strapped to the feet.Among the relics of early Egyptians are some beautiful sandals made from plaited papyrus leaves.When the medieval guilds controlled craftsmanship in Europe, perfection in workmanship and extravagance in style seems to have been sought in shoes rather than foot comfort and protection.As last as 1850, most shoes had the same shape for the right and left shoe.Also, only two widths of size were available: a "slim" shoe and a "stout" shoe.Through all this development, comparatively little attention was devoted to fitting qualities or comfort [2].

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.565
Threshold uncertainty score0.620

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0100.009
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0100.008
Open science0.0030.007
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.5650.559

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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.209 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEngineering Education and PedagogyFrench-language works237,207