Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to investigate why women are highly underrepresented within the field of physics around the world. The study was mainly conducted through qualitative interviews with adolescent girls and it aimed to shelter more than just a local perspective; therefor the interviews were performed in three different schools, in three different countries; one in Bukoba, Tanzania, one in Guelph, Canada, and one in Vellinge, Sweden. This international standpoint provided a profounder understanding to this worldwide concern. There were many similarities between the responses at the three schools, but there were also numerous differences. The girls in Bukoba suggested that women do not have the confidence to study a hard subject like physics, while the girls in Vellinge and Guelph believe that women chose not to study physics due to old stereotypes and prejudgements, and the fact that they do not want to be part of a minority. A portion of the study will reflect on potential solutions to this problematic unbalance, which includes how to inspire more women to enter the field of physics.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.023 | 0.003 |
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".