Заміжжя освітянки підстава для звільнення? Думки керівників освітніх закладів Київського навчального округу початку 20 ст.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Gender inequality shapes the study of women's professional activities in the modern era. The aim of the article is to elucidate the positions of educational institution administrators within the Kyiv educational district regarding the (in)advisability of female educators continuing to work after marriage, based on a survey of 1903 respondents. The investigation methods include content analysis and the achievements of gender studies. It was established that approximately a quarter of the administrators fully supported the ministry's proposal to dismiss married female educators, while 32.4% cautioned against unconditional legislative action in this area, and 43.2% outright opposed its practical feasibility. Dominant markers of the image of the female educator included professional-functional, moral-ethical, family-marital, and economic aspects, which, depending on the administrators' positions, acquired corresponding arguments and conclusions. The functional dichotomy of a married educator between professional duties and family obligations was perceived both by the majority of administrators and categorically rejected by some of them. The study justifies the change in attitude towards the potential reproductive capacity of female employees in official correspondence. It was revealed that the natural conditions of female educators, resulting from childbirth, no longer concerned a significant portion of educational institution administrators. Some have advocated for the necessity of social guarantees for female employees as future mothers. The perception of women's emancipation is supported by the thesis that the qualification of female educators was determined not by their marital status, but by their individual qualities. This deepens the notion of equality of rights and responsibilities among individuals tasked with teaching, regardless of gender.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
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".