MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415235547 · doi:10.29173/istl2895

Review of Online Tools to Combat Gendered Citation Bias

2025· article· en· W4415235547 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueIssues in Science and Technology Librarianship · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicAcademic Writing and Publishing
Canadian institutionsWilfrid Laurier University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCitationDirectoryTransparency (behavior)Gender biasDigital libraryScholarly communicationCitation index

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recent research shows a disparity in citation rates between articles authored by women and the expected citations rates in several scientific disciplines. The gender imbalance in citation lists has prompted the development of digital tools aimed at helping authors identify gender bias in their references lists. This article examines three tools designed to mitigate gender disparities in citations: the Gender Citation Balance Index (GCBI) GCBI-alyzer for the Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience (JoCN), the Citation Transparency (v0.0.8) browser extension for Chrome, and the Gage directory by 500 Women Scientists. The paper also explores how science librarians can contribute to raising awareness of citation bias and the digital tools available to address it.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.821
Threshold uncertainty score0.396

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.121
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.214 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it