Gender-Related Occupational Interests Do Not Define a Masculinity-Femininity Factor
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. The possible existence of a broad factor of masculine versus feminine (M-F) occupational interests was tested. Data from Lippa (2005) were reanalyzed using common factor analysis and omitting redundant composite variables. The first unrotated factor, as obtained in male-only and female-only samples, was very small and showed weak loadings for most interest scales. Moreover, strong negative correlations between overall “masculine” and “feminine” interests were shown to be a statistical artifact. Second, analyses of new data on the Campbell Interest and Skills Survey indicated that, when gender differences were controlled, gender-related scales showed only very modest loadings on a potential M-F interests factor; in addition, several scales were mutually uncorrelated, a result that was not attributable to the influence of any second factor. Results undermine the hypothesis of a broad factor of M-F occupational interests.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it