MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4307064160 · doi:10.56367/oag-036-9829

Coevolving informatics and shifting gender dynamics in Norwegian politics

2022· article· en· W4307064160 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Chris Girard

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen Access Government · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender Politics and Representation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNorwegianParliamentPoliticsPolitical scienceState (computer science)Government (linguistics)SuffrageGender studiesQuarter (Canadian coin)SociologyEconomic growthLawGeographyEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Coevolving informatics and shifting gender dynamics in Norwegian politics Chris Girard, an Associate Professor from the Department of Global and Sociocultural Studies at Florida International University explores education, gender rights and the freedoms of women in Norway. Only one of Norway’s 70 monarchs was a woman over the last thousand years, and now, after great change when universal suffrage was first extended to women in 1913, since 1981, two women have become prime ministers in Norway, serving as heads of state for over 40 per cent of the subsequent four decades. Now, the Norwegian parliament comprises 45 per cent of women legislators, which can partially be attributed to the development of a digital-age layer of information flow, which allowed more Norwegian women to overcome the spatial barriers to government careers that arise from childcare at home. In the present day, there is now a growing demand for educated women counteracts an enduring historical trend extending from the 12th century to the final quarter of the 19th century, when women in Norway had been blocked from higher levels of education.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.069
Threshold uncertainty score0.138

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0100.032
Scholarly communication0.0110.006
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.386
Teacher spread0.323 · 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.

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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen Access GovernmentSame topicGender Politics and RepresentationFrench-language works237,207