Bibliographic record
Abstract
LIKE WOMEN'S STUDIES, this book has multiple origins and includes many voices.It is the result of the confluence of three research streams springing from a common source: a passionate commitment to documenting women's lives and the development of feminism across Canada, and to ensuring that the historical record includes as many perspectives as possible.The book brings together three distinct projects.Wendy Robbins, at her home, at the University of New Brunswick (unb), and nationally in the Canadian Federation for the Humanities and Social Sciences (cfhss), was closely monitoring the situation of women in Canadian universities and was actively involved in various campaigns to improve women's status.She read The Politics of Women's Studies: Testimony from 30 Founding Mothers (2000), a collection of autobiographical essays edited by Florence Howe; the American collection, she recognized, "might serve as a wake-up call to founding mothers of Women's Studies programs across Canada, for our stories, too, are in need of integration, analysis, and articulation" (Robbins 2001).Her commitment to this project was confirmed at the annual meeting of coordinators of women's studies at Dalhousie University in the spring of 2002, where the notion of creating a comparable Canadian collection was generally welcomed as an excellent idea.By then, Wendy had started to supervise an undergraduate student at unb, Laurie McLaughlan, in the compilation of "A Chronology of the Development of Women's Studies in Canada," which they posted on the par-l website for comments and corrections.Entries were written in either English or French, and many of the
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.503 | 0.303 |
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".