Women's Inequality in the Workplace as Framed in News Discourse: Refracting from Gender Ideology*
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article examine les découvertes d'une analyse du schéma interprétatif du discours journalistique sur l'inégalité des femmes sur les lieux de travail dans The Globe and Mail et le National Post de novembre 2000 à novembre 2002. Les articles de journaux ont été analysés d'après la façon dont ils sont encadrés et, par la suite, selon la manière dont ils créent le genre en tant que structure sociale. On a découvert que le cadrage des expériences inégales des femmes sur les lieux de travail decoule de leur incapacitéà« s'intégrer », de choix « naturels » et de leur façon de » jongler « avec le travail et les responsabilités familiales. Une analyse ultérieure démontre que ces cadres reflétent une idéologie où le soutien de famille est masculin et les soins, féminins, suggérant que le genre est également moulé idéologiquement à l'intérieur de ce discours journalistique. This paper presents the findings of a frame analysis of newspaper discourse on women's inequality in the workplace in The Globe and Mail and the National Post from November 2000 to November 2002. Newspaper articles were analysed in terms of how they are framed by and further shape gender as a social structure. It was found that women's unequal workplace experiences are framed as a result of their inability to “fit in,”“natural” choices and “juggling” of work and family responsibilities. Further analysis shows that these frames refract from a dominant male breadwinner/female caregiver gender ideology, suggesting that gender is also shaped ideologically within this news discourse.
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 | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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".