MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7024578830

SCIENTOMETRIC ANALYSIS OF RESEARCH FROM A FEMINIST PERSPECTIVE

2013· article· en· W7024578830 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueRedalyc (Universidad Autónoma del Estado de México) · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicFace recognition and analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPerspective (graphical)Subject (documents)ScopusLatin AmericansVariety (cybernetics)Sample (material)CitationBibliometrics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

"In order to build a historical map of scientific production from a feminist perspective and to analyze the central themes that have been studied by the academics from this approach, a search was conducted using SCOPUS an international bibliometric database, for the period between 1960 and July 2013. The search strategy based on the use of four key words produced 54 articles, written by 86 specialists of 14 countries, among them USA, UK, Canada and Australia, 87% written in English and 4% in Spanish. Even though the feminist theoretical approach is interdisciplinary by definition, the main disciplines represented in the sample were social sciences and Psychology. 69% of the articles were written by a single author, and 78% of the authors were women. Citation varied between 137 and zero. The most cited studies were from Canada, USA and the UK. Articles covered a wide variety of themes emphasizing theoretical, methodological and empirical issues in different areas of knowledge. Additionally a very low presence of articles dealing with the impact of the feminist perspective in public policies was observed, as well as very few articles devoted to examine applications of the feminist theory on education. Conclusions highlight the challenge for Latin American feminist researchers to increase their presence in scientific journals with international distribution indexed in SCOPUS, and to increase the quality of specialized Hispanic journals, in order to favor scientific dissemination on the subject in Spanish."

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, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.743
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0110.039
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.001
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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.269 · 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
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRedalyc (Universidad Autónoma del Estado de México)Same topicFace recognition and analysisCategoryBibliometricsFrench-language works237,207