Researchers' sex/gender identity influences how sex/gender question is investigated in neuroscience: An example from an OHBM meeting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Gender inequality and diversity in STEM is a challenging field of research. Although the relation between the sex/gender of the researcher and the scientific research practices has been previously examined, less interest has been demonstrated towards the relation between sex/gender of the researcher and the research topic. Here, we examine, from a neurofeminist perspective, both questions: whether sex/gender diversity is related to the examination of sex/gender as a variable and whether sex/gender diversity is related to the topic of study. Using the database of submitted posters to the Organization of Human Brain Mapping 2022 annual conference, we identified abstracts examining a sex/gender-related research question. Among these target abstracts, we identified four analytical categories, varying in their degree of content-related complexity: (1) sex/gender as a covariate, (2) sex/gender as a binary variable for the study of sex/gender differences, (3) sex/gender with additional biological information, and (4) sex/gender with additional social information. Statistical comparisons between sex/gender of researcher and the research topics showed that the proportion of abstracts from Non-binaryor Other first authors compared to both Women and Men was lower for all submitted abstracts than for the target abstracts; that more researchers with sex/gender-identity other than Man implemented analytical category 4; and, for instance, that research involving cognitive, affective, and behavioural neuroscience more frequently fit into categories 4. Word cloud analysis confirmed the validity of the four exploratorily identified analytical categories. We conclude by discussing how raising awareness about contemporary neurofeminist approaches, including perspectives from the global south, is critical to neuroscientific and societal progress.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.035 | 0.122 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.003 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".