Bibliographic record
Abstract
Analyses of Australian society have changed considerably over the last 50 years. They needed to. Most commonly, Australia was represented as white, male and British. This image persisted even well into the 1960s, when popularised constructs of the bronzed Aussie/Anzac/bushman gradually gave way to a more suburbanised (but equally male-dominated) image, in which women (as well as migrants and aboriginal peoples) were ignored or absent. Australia was characterised as a classless (that is, a homogeneous middle-class egalitarian) society in which the ethos of mateship and the myth of ‘the promised land’ presented a rosy picture of an ‘Australian Way of Life’ that refused to find a place for the disinherited, the poor, blacks, migrants, women. In the 1970s class analyses began to question and challenge this myth of classless equality, and government policy changed during this period from integrationism to multiculturalism, giving migrants a voice. But women still remained largely absent from mainstream representations, relegated to mere appendages and helpmates for men and ignored as such in political and theoretical strategies and policies.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.313 | 0.129 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".