Gender Equity in Commonwealth Higher Education Women's Studies International Forum
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article explores emerging themes from the literature on gender and higher education in low-income Commonwealth countries. It attempts to engage with a range of unpublished or `grey¿ literature and to identify aspects of gender inequality that universally disturb and discomfort. The dominant literature in the field of gender and higher education is from the UK, USA, Northern Europe, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. Yet there is considerable gender equity activity also in low-income Commonwealth countries. But the nature of gendered change or obstacles to gender equality in higher education have not been systematically mapped across the Commonwealth and there has been an absence of multilateral dissemination. The article highlights how gender has been excluded as a category of analysis in writing on the changing political economy of higher education and the development of borderless provision.
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 | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 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".