Gender differences in work experiences and satisfactions of Norwegian oil rig workers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The present study sets out to compare women (N=24) and men (N=613) working on Norwegian oil rigs in the North Sea on work experiences, work satisfaction, perception of safety attitudes and safety climate, and psychological health. Design/methodology/approach Data were collected using questionnaires from 1,022 women and men, a 59 percent response rate. Only those respondents working in traditionally male‐dominated jobs were considered. Findings Few differences were observed, suggesting that those women that continue in this occupation compare favorably with their male colleagues. Research limitations/implications The findings should be considered tentative, given the small number of women taking part in the study. Practical implications For the past three decades, women were encouraged and supported to enter non‐traditional occupations (NTOs). NTOs were occupations that have traditionally been male‐dominated. Only modest inroads have been made by females during this time. Women in NTOs typically report work experiences reflecting unique challenges, most resulting from the gender culture of their workplace and findings show that women that survive in these jobs report similar experiences to those of their male colleagues. Originality/value The paper adds to one's knowledge of women's experiences in non‐traditional jobs.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".