MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2045289321 · doi:10.1353/ces.2012.0010

Does How You Measure Representation Matter?: Assessing the Persistence of Canadian Universities’ Gendered and Colour Coded Vertical Mosaic

2012· article· en· W2045289321 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Howard Ramos

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian ethnic studies · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial and Cultural Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEquity (law)WorkforceEthnic groupDemographic economicsPopulationSociologyRepresentation (politics)Underrepresented MinorityGender studiesPolitical scienceDemographyPoliticsMedical educationMedicineLawAnthropologyEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper engages recent debates over equity group representation among university professors. Since at least the time of John Porter’s publication of The Vertical Mosaic, the correlation between ethnicity, education, and employment success has been shown. The most troubling of Porter’s research findings was the persistence of a stratified Canadian workforce and society. Using data from the 1991, 1996, 2001, and 2006 Canadian censuses, three questions are engaged: 1) How well are different equity groups represented among university professors? 2) Is their representation improving over time? and 3) Does looking at the pool of earned doctorates matter in the analysis of equity group representation among university professors? The paper shows that when looking at crude comparisons of the proportion of equity groups in the general population to the proportion of equity groups in the professorate, visible minorities have moved from being overrepresented to underrepresented, Aboriginal peoples are consistently underrepresented by a small amount, and women are significantly underrepresented, although the gap is narrowing over time. When additional analysis is done by looking at comparisons of the proportion of equity groups who work as university professors compared to the national average of all people working as university professors, similar conclusions are made; however, Aboriginal peoples are more severely underrepresented when making this comparison. When the proportion of equity groups with earned doctorates is examined and compared against the proportion working as university professors, we see surprising differences: women appear to be overrepresented or at parity depending on the calculation used, Aboriginal peoples are almost at parity or slightly underrepresented, and visible minorities are underrepresented irrespective of measurement or method used to assess their representation in the professoriate. Cet article traite des débats récents qui ont eu lieu sur la représentation de groupes visés par l’équité parmi les professeurs d’université. Au moins depuis l’époque de la publication de La mosaïque verticale de John Porter, la corrélation entre ethnicité, éducation et réussite profession-nelle est reconnue. Ce qui est le plus troublant dans les résultats de la recherche de Porter, c’est la persistance d’une force de travail et d’une société stratifiées au Canada. À partir de données des recensements canadiens de 1991, 1996, 2001 et 2006, trois questions sont posées : 1) À quel point les divers groupes visés par l’équité sont-ils représentés parmi les professeurs d’université? 2) Le sont-ils mieux avec le temps? et 3) dans quelle mesure le fait de consulter le bassin de titulaires d’un doctorat joue-t-il dans l’analyse de cette représentation? Dans cet article nous montrons qu’en examinant des comparaisons approximatives de la proportion des groupes visés par l’équité dans la population en général et au sein du professorat, de surreprésentées, les minorités visibles sont devenues sous-représentées, ce que les autochtones sont légèrement, mais systématiquement, et les femmes largement, bien que l’écart aille en diminuant peu à peu. Une analyse complémentaire comparant, parmi tous ceux qui travaillent comme professeurs d’université, la proportion des groupes visés par l’équité avec la moyenne nationale, on arrive à des conclusions semblables; cependant, lorsqu’on opère cette comparaison, les autochtones sont sérieusement plus sousreprésentés. Lorsqu’on examine la proportion de titulaires d’un doctorat dans les groupes visés par l’équité et qu’on les compare à ceux qui travaillent comme professeurs d’université, on découvre des différences surprenantes : les femmes semblent surreprésentées ou à parité selon la méthode de calcul utilisée. Les autochtones, eux, sont presqu’à parité ou légèrement sous-représentés, une sous-représentation que subissent les minorités visibles, quelle que soit la méthode ou la mesure utilisée pour évaluer la représentation en question dans le professorat.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.024
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.078
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.968
Threshold uncertainty score0.231

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0240.078
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.008
Science and technology studies0.0090.006
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0030.005
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.192
GPT teacher head0.370
Teacher spread0.178 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations12
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian ethnic studiesSame topicSocial and Cultural DynamicsFrench-language works237,207