Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: This paper considers the future of the Ph.D. in women’s studies in Canada. It argues that it is important to continue to develop and to offer the existing doctorate in women’s studies in Canada because it contributes in significant ways to the scholarly environment for students and faculty in universities. However, it cautions against developing and offering additional Ph.D. programmes in women’s studies without simultaneously considering and challenging the current, lean fiscal climate, for post-secondary education and the implications of this context for women’s studies. After briefly mapping out this climate, this paper offers, for the explicit purpose of further discussion and debate, some recommendations to advance women’s studies as a vibrant, scholarly discipline. It makes specific recommendations to strengthen the institutional bases of women’s studies. These include bolstering institutional structures and a sustained commitment to strengthen women’s studies from outside the walls of any single institution. It argues that women’s studies needs what Howe has termed a “long-term, strategic institutional imagination” with which to approach the future (Howe 1997, 416). Responsibility for these recommendations rests primarily with those who teach and who hold administrative positions in Canadian universities, and also includes those who hold decision-making positions in research bodies such as the Social Science and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC). It is within a framework of a more clearly articulated vision for women’s studies, one that is solid enough on which to build, and yet flexible enough to respond to changing needs and circumstances, that the Ph.D. in women’s studies will thrive.
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 | 0.053 | 0.055 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.049 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.022 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".