Bibliographic record
Abstract
1 This paper has had a chequered history. In 2000 I was invited by some 'social capitalists ' to give a brief feminist critique of Putnam's Bowling Alone to a Social Capital workship held at St John's College, Cambridge. I was greatly assisted in the production of that paper by Professor Anne Phillips, Director of the LSE Gender Institute; and encouraged by Prof Sheila Riddell and Dr Eva Gamarnikow (both participants at the workshop), to develop the critique by utilising data from my own research to explore the salience of gender for social capital in relation to children and young people. In an ideal world we would have co-authored a paper, but time constraints have meant that it hasn't happened. So I am immensely grateful to Anne, Eva and Sheila, and to the organisers of the Winnipeg Conference, for encouraging me. Above all though I must thank the children who participated in my research and their teachers for enabling the research to take place. For the purposes of this paper I am following the definition in the UN Convention on the Rights and referring to children and young people under the age of 18 as 'children'. 1
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 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.828 | 0.672 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".