L’identité scientifique chez les étudiantes en STIM: une recension des écrits
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research on the underrepresentation of women in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) increasingly adopts a perspective based on science identity. This approach allows for consideration of both individual and social factors that shape female students’ educational paths in STEM. This literature review aims to provide an overview of key writings on the concept of science identity (Carlone & Johnson, 2007), primarily from anglophone research. We explore the definition of science identity, its components, and its variations in specific STEM disciplines, such as physics (Hazari & al., 2010) and engineering (Capobianco, 2006 ; Godwin & al., 2016). Despite the numerous existing studies, the concept of science identity has been slow to make its way into francophone research in science education, which could benefit from its theoretical contributions. We thus describe how science identity could serve as a relevant theoretical tool for studying the school experiences of female students in STEM fields in Quebec, particularly at the college level, which represents a pivotal moment in their orientation in higher education.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".