MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Women and Men in Conflicting Social Roles: Implications from Social Psychological Research

2011· article· en· W1920051856 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueSocial Issues and Policy Review · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicWork-Family Balance Challenges
Canadian institutionsYork UniversityOntario Tech University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAmbivalenceWorkforceRealmStereotype (UML)InequalitySocial psychologySocial inequalityPsychologyLegislationPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Despite legislation for gender equality in many nations, gender discrimination continues to be a problem. Psychological research from social role theory, the stereotype content model, and ambivalent sexism provide insights into the motivations behind gender inequality. This article reviews key research findings from these theoretical perspectives in the realm of gendered occupational inequalities and segregation. The emphasis of the article is on individuals fulfilling social roles that are perceived as conflicting and the consequences of those perceptions. Parents in the workforce, female leaders, and male nurses are used as specific examples of social role conflict. The policy implications from this research—and the issues facing parents in the workforce, female leaders, and male nurses in particular—are discussed.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.635
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.313
GPT teacher head0.534
Teacher spread0.221 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it