Las mujeres en la profesión académica y el techo de cristal. Una perspectiva comparada en Norteamérica (México, Estados Unidos y Canadá)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Este trabajo compara la baja representación de las mujeres entre el personal académico de tiempo completo en México, Estados Unidos y Canadá, y resalta la importancia de definir políticas que atiendan esta problemática. Se basa en la encuesta internacional The Changing Academic Profession (CAP), aplicada durante 2007-08. La aplicación del cuestionario se basó en una muestra aleatoria de instituciones de educación superior y de académicos. La muestra quedó integrada por los siguientes académicos de tiempo completo 1,775 para México, 991 para los Estados Unidos y, 152 para Canadá. Las mujeres que están tratando de incorporarse o de permanecer en la carrera académica enfrentan barreras que se relacionan con aspectos socioculturales y estructurales y que en un momento dado conforman un techo de cristal. Se podría decir que las académicas que finalmente permanecen en la academia, no son sólo sobrevivientes del sistema educativo, sino que también se caracterizan como grupo demográfico-académico de manera distinta.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".