MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6991566876

Holistic analysis of global feminism publications: A bibliometric evaluation of feminism literature between 1975 and 2017

2021· article· en· W6991566876 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueLincoln (University of Nebraska) · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSex and Gender in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFeminismBibliometricsPopularityScientometricsPeriodical literatureWeb of science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Bibliometrics is a relatively novel statistical branch investigating academic publications in a certain field. Although there has been an increasing popularity of bibliometric studies in recent years, scientific literature lacks a holistic analysis of feminism literature. To the best of our knowledge our study was the first bibliometric analysis of the publications in feminism literature. All data of this study was obtained from Web of Science databases. All documents produced in feminism literature between 1975 and 2017 were included. A total of 44,920 published articles were found. The peak year of feminism literature was 2017 with 3378 articles. English was the major language of the literature and it covered 83.91% of total documents. The United States of America (USA) dominated the area with 18,127 articles and covered 40.35% of all literature followed by the UK, Canada, Australia, Spain, Brazil and South Africa (n=5035, 3383, 2180, 777, 620 and 472 documents, respectively). Publications related to feminism were produced from almost all regions in the world except for some African and Asian countries. Canada was the most productive country with a score of 91.55 followed by the Australia, New Zealand and the UK (s=88, 81.11 and 75.63, respectively). Eun-Ok Im from the USA was the most prolific author with 40 articles in feminism field. The USA was the predominant country during all the period of 1975 to 2017. University of California System was the most contributor institution between 1975 and 2009 although University of London ranked the first after 2010. Developed countries dominated feminism literature and all 20 most contributor funding agencies were from developed countries. The researchers from developing and least-developed countries should be supported to produce new publications in the field of feminism. © 2021. All Rights Reserved.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmaBibliometrics
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationallow
gptBibliometrics
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Other designhigh
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesBibliometrics
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.069
Threshold uncertainty score0.978

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0060.042
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.174
GPT teacher head0.396
Teacher spread0.222 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

Bibliometrics

The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.

Study designObservational · Other design
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLincoln (University of Nebraska)Same topicSex and Gender in HealthcareCategoryBibliometricsFrench-language works237,207