Gender assignment in doctoral theses: revisiting Teseo with a method based on cultural consensus theory

IF 3.5 3区 管理学 Q2 COMPUTER SCIENCE, INTERDISCIPLINARY APPLICATIONS Scientometrics Pub Date : 2024-06-20 DOI:10.1007/s11192-024-05079-z
Nataly Matias-Rayme, Iuliana Botezan, Mari Carmen Suárez-Figueroa, Rodrigo Sánchez-Jiménez
{"title":"Gender assignment in doctoral theses: revisiting Teseo with a method based on cultural consensus theory","authors":"Nataly Matias-Rayme, Iuliana Botezan, Mari Carmen Suárez-Figueroa, Rodrigo Sánchez-Jiménez","doi":"10.1007/s11192-024-05079-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>This study critically evaluates gender assignment methods within academic contexts, employing a comparative analysis of diverse techniques, including a SVM classifier, gender-guesser, genderize.io, and a Cultural Consensus Theory based classifier. Emphasizing the significance of transparency, data sources, and methodological considerations, the research introduces nomquamgender, a cultural consensus-based method, and applies it to Teseo, a Spanish dissertation database. The results reveal a substantial reduction in the number of individuals with unknown gender compared to traditional methods relying on INE data. The nuanced differences in gender distribution underscore the importance of methodological choices in gender studies, urging for transparent, comprehensive, and freely accessible methods to enhance the accuracy and reliability of gender assignment in academic research. After reevaluating the problem of gender imbalances in the doctoral system we can conclude that it’s still evident although the trend is clearly set for its reduction. Finaly, specific problems related to some disciplines, including STEM fields and seniority roles are found to be worth of attention in the near future.</p>","PeriodicalId":21755,"journal":{"name":"Scientometrics","volume":"58 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Scientometrics","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-024-05079-z","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"COMPUTER SCIENCE, INTERDISCIPLINARY APPLICATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This study critically evaluates gender assignment methods within academic contexts, employing a comparative analysis of diverse techniques, including a SVM classifier, gender-guesser, genderize.io, and a Cultural Consensus Theory based classifier. Emphasizing the significance of transparency, data sources, and methodological considerations, the research introduces nomquamgender, a cultural consensus-based method, and applies it to Teseo, a Spanish dissertation database. The results reveal a substantial reduction in the number of individuals with unknown gender compared to traditional methods relying on INE data. The nuanced differences in gender distribution underscore the importance of methodological choices in gender studies, urging for transparent, comprehensive, and freely accessible methods to enhance the accuracy and reliability of gender assignment in academic research. After reevaluating the problem of gender imbalances in the doctoral system we can conclude that it’s still evident although the trend is clearly set for its reduction. Finaly, specific problems related to some disciplines, including STEM fields and seniority roles are found to be worth of attention in the near future.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
博士论文中的性别分配:用基于文化共识理论的方法重新审视 Teseo
本研究通过对 SVM 分类器、gender-guesser、genderize.io 和基于文化共识理论的分类器等不同技术的比较分析,对学术背景下的性别分配方法进行了批判性评估。研究强调了透明度、数据来源和方法考虑的重要性,引入了基于文化共识的方法 nomquamgender,并将其应用于西班牙论文数据库 Teseo。结果显示,与依赖国家统计学会数据的传统方法相比,性别未知的人数大幅减少。性别分布的细微差别强调了性别研究中方法选择的重要性,呼吁采用透明、全面和可免费获取的方法,以提高学术研究中性别分配的准确性和可靠性。在重新评估了博士生制度中的性别失衡问题后,我们可以得出结论:尽管减少性别失衡 的趋势已经形成,但这一问题依然明显。最后,与某些学科有关的具体问题,包括 STEM 领域和资历角色,在不久的将来值得关注。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Scientometrics
Scientometrics 管理科学-计算机:跨学科应用
CiteScore
7.20
自引率
17.90%
发文量
351
审稿时长
1.5 months
期刊介绍: Scientometrics aims at publishing original studies, short communications, preliminary reports, review papers, letters to the editor and book reviews on scientometrics. The topics covered are results of research concerned with the quantitative features and characteristics of science. Emphasis is placed on investigations in which the development and mechanism of science are studied by means of (statistical) mathematical methods. The Journal also provides the reader with important up-to-date information about international meetings and events in scientometrics and related fields. Appropriate bibliographic compilations are published as a separate section. Due to its fully interdisciplinary character, Scientometrics is indispensable to research workers and research administrators throughout the world. It provides valuable assistance to librarians and documentalists in central scientific agencies, ministries, research institutes and laboratories. Scientometrics includes the Journal of Research Communication Studies. Consequently its aims and scope cover that of the latter, namely, to bring the results of research investigations together in one place, in such a form that they will be of use not only to the investigators themselves but also to the entrepreneurs and research workers who form the object of these studies.
期刊最新文献
Evaluating the wisdom of scholar crowds from the perspective of knowledge diffusion Automatic gender detection: a methodological procedure and recommendations to computationally infer the gender from names with ChatGPT and gender APIs An integrated indicator for evaluating scientific papers: considering academic impact and novelty Measuring hotness transfer of individual papers based on citation relationship Prevalence and characteristics of graphical abstracts in a specialist pharmacology journal
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1