MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Women and Digital Transformation

2025· book-chapter· ng· W4415712497 on OpenAlexaff
Leelawati Leelawati, Ashu Ashu, Deepak Kumar, A. V. Senthil Kumar

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook-chapter
Languageng
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender and Technology in Education
Canadian institutionsSAIT Polytechnic
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVotingInequalityDigital transformationDiversity (politics)Face (sociological concept)Action (physics)Gender inequalityPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Digital change revolutionizes industries, economies and societies, but women are significantly small in technology -related fields. Despite the progress of digital access, voting education, employment and persistent inequalities in gender women prevent women's complete participation in the digital economy. Globally, women are only 28% of the Vote labor force and only 22% of AI subjects are women. Technology increases genital wage differences and inequalities further, and earns women 21% less than men in similar roles. The chapter examines the face of women with versatile obstacles to technology, including sociological bias, workplace discrimination and lack of mentorship. The chapter has action -rich solutions including political reforms, initiatives for diversity of companies and voting education for girls. By promoting equal opportunities in digital change, society can unlock innovation, economic development and inclusive progress.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.633
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.245 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGender and Technology in EducationFrench-language works237,207