Feminism = Women’s Movement? The Effects of Terminology and Gender on Endorsement of Feminism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Building on past research, this study examined whether endorsement of feminism is still influenced by terminology used (i.e., feminism vs. women’s movement) and participant gender. One hundred undergraduates (36 men and 64 women) were randomly assigned to receive scale items that identified feminist values but used the terms feminism/feminist or women’s movement/women depending on the condition they were assigned. In addition, activism, acceptance of traditional gender roles, and feminist identification were measured. As expected, men endorsed feminism less than women overall, and participants in the women’s movement (vs. feminism) condition endorsed feminism more. When controlling for feminist identification, there was no gender difference in activism or acceptance of gender roles for participants in the feminism/feminist condition; however, women reported more activism and less acceptance of gender roles than men in the women’s movement/women condition. This study suggests that there is still a stigma surrounding feminism that influences its endorsement, especially among women.
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 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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".