Occupational Gender Segregation in Canada, 1981–1996: Overall, Vertical and Horizontal Segregation*
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article examine les changements survenus entre 1981 et 1996 dans la ségrégation hommes‐femmes. Le niveau de ségrégation dans son ensemble a faiblement baissé, suivant en cela la tendance observée depuis les années soixante. La diminution se traduit par une décroissance de 41% de la ségrégation verticale (équité salariale) mais par une augmentation de la ségrégation horizontale (différences autres que cette équité). Les femmes ont renforcé leur point d'ancrage dans la main‐d'œuvre à plein temps et élargi L'étendue de leur participation alors que celle des hommes dans des secteurs à temps partiel et moins prisés a augmenté, et que les emplois traditionnellement occupés par des hommes ont connu un déclin et ont vu L'arrivée des femmes. This article examines changes in gender segregation in Canada between 1981 and 1996. Overall segregation declined slightly. This is a continuation of a trend occurring since the 1960s. The decline comprises a 41% decrease in vertical segregation, representing inequality associated with occupational earnings, and increases in horizontal segregation, difference without such inequality. Women strengthened their footholds in the full‐time work force and diversified their breadth of participation, just as men's participation in part‐time and less desirable enclaves began to increase, and as traditionally male occupations experienced both decline and some influx of female workers.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".