Time to Shuffle the Deck
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The underrepresentation of women speakers at academic conferences in the gambling studies field is historic and pervasive yet the pressing issue of gender disparity in the field has yet to be adequately acknowledged or addressed. In 2023, an International Forum, hosted by Research And Networking for Gambling Early-career Scholars (RANGES) brought together ten early career researchers in the gambling studies field, all women, from varied research environments and disciplinary backgrounds. The International Forum aimed to answer the question: How can gambling studies conferences improve gender representation and become more inclusive and equitable? The result is this commentary which constitutes a set of recommendations related to gambling studies conferences designed to be implemented broadly as a form of collective action that will (1) contribute to the development of a shared understanding and awareness of the pressing issue of gender disparity; (2) provide actionable pathways for change; and (3) trigger a systemic and comprehensive change in the face of ongoing gender disparity with the goal of creating a more equitable, diverse and inclusive research field.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.004 |
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 it