Women's studies in the Latin American context: a bibliometric approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Women's studies in Latin America are transcendental because they make visible and challenge gender inequalities to achieve a more just and equitable society. However, despite this, there are still many research gaps, for which the objective is to examine the trends in research on women's studies in Latin America. Methods: An exploratory methodology based on bibliometric analysis is proposed to evaluate the scientific literature, based on the parameters of the PRISMA-2020 declaration. Results: The bibliometric analysis reveals a growth in women's studies in Latin America, reflecting its importance and relevance. Scientific production has experienced exponential growth, with leading researchers and journals. The United States and Canada lead scientific production. A change is observed in the topics addressed, focusing more on gender and equality. The thematic clusters identified highlight priority areas such as politics, institutions and representation. Conclusions: Emerging keywords include neoliberalism, gender violence, political participation, female empowerment, and femicide, reflecting new concerns and challenges addressed in gender studies in Latin America.
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 | 0.022 | 0.066 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.174 | 0.299 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".