Birthing and re-birthing Down Under: from ARM-A to AMIRCI
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ExtractIn Australia an organization that focused on the academic study of mothering did not exist. In 2000 several mothers, including Julie Kelso and Marie, who were both Ph.D. researchers at the University of Queensland, formed a committee to plan a day devoted to presentations focusing on the study of mothering. This informal structure became a formal association in 2005, taking the name "The Association for Research on Mothering-Australia" (ARM-A). ARM-A is a non-profit incorporated feminist organization that exists to promote research into mothering/motherhood/mothers. In August, 2010, at our Annual General Meeting, we voted to change the name of our Association to the Australian Motherhood Initiative for Research and Community Involvement (AMIRCI) to maintain our connection with the Canadian ARM now changed to MIRCI. In this chapter, we outline the history of the Australian Association, the reasons we established it, the background to our choice of name, our philosophy and our goals. We have had our successes and our failures, and will outline these aspects of our experiences.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".