MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2023036438 · doi:10.1525/sp.2008.55.2.271

Revisiting the Glass Escalator: The Case of Gender Segregation in a Female Dominated Occupation

2008· article· en· W2023036438 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 Problems · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender Diversity and Inequality
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGender studiesMeaning (existential)Sample (material)SortingDemographyDemographic economicsPsychologySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Using data from the National Sample Survey of Registered Nurses (NSSRN) 1977–2000, we examine sex segregation in a paradigmatic female-dominated occupation—nursing. We find that contrary to the vertical pattern of occupational stratification implied by the “glass escalator,” men are not disproportionately represented in administrative posts. Instead, we find a pervasive pattern of horizontal sex segregation, whereby men and women are disproportionately clustered in particular gendered specialties. Using in-depth interviews with a sample of registered nurses, we show that male nurses tend to gravitate toward areas of nursing they perceive to be more “masculine.” Our findings have implications for other female-dominated occupations because the bottom-heavy structure of most occupations limits the number of men (as well as women) from reaching the top positions within the field, meaning that horizontal sorting processes of acclimation sort most male employees in female-dominated professions.

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: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.267
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
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 head0.134
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.188 · 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