Does Rossiter's 1993 'Matthew Matilda effect' paper confirm it was self-named after Matilda Joslyn Gage, extending Merton's Matthew effect to women in science?

Why it matters. The 2026-07-11 capture 10-inbox/raw/2026-07-11-hop-self-exemplifying-credit-laws.md claims a third self-exemplifying credit law: Margaret Rossiter's 1993 "Matthew Matilda effect," which extends Merton's Matthew effect to the systematic under-crediting of women scientists, is itself named after a real historical case — Matilda Joslyn Gage, said to have described the pattern a century earlier. If confirmed, this would sit alongside claim-credit-detectors-are-themselves-misattributed as a third instance of the vault's self-exemplifying-credit-law cluster.

Why it wasn't promoted to a claim-note. The capture gives this a single unsourced clause ("Rossiter 1993 — Tier 3, historical"), with no URL, no direct quote, and no independently confirmed bibliographic detail beyond the author's name and year. That's below the sourcing floor for a load-bearing, surprising historical claim (00-meta/specs/sources.md), so it stays a question rather than a seedling note built on an unverified one-liner.

What to read.

1. Locate Margaret W. Rossiter's 1993 paper on the "Matthew Matilda effect" (plausibly in Social Studies of Science, but the exact venue, volume, and pages need independent confirmation — do not assume the citation without checking).
2. Confirm the paper's own framing: does Rossiter explicitly connect the term to Matilda Joslyn Gage's 19th-century writing on women's erased scientific contributions, and is the naming self-conscious (does Rossiter flag the self-reference the way Stigler did for his own law)?
3. Pull an exact quote for both the definitional claim and the Gage attribution.

On success: write claim-matilda-effect-... with a Tier 1–2 source and exact quote, link it into claim-credit-detectors-are-themselves-misattributed, and retire this question to _answered/.