MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2096184668 · doi:10.1093/pa/gsr063

Women's Representation around the World: The Importance of Women's Participation in the Workforce

2011· article· en· W2096184668 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

VenueParliamentary Affairs · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender Politics and Representation
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsParliamentRepresentation (politics)WorkforceDemographic economicsAsideSet (abstract data type)SociologyPolitical scienceEconomicsLawPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Aside from the commonsensical conclusion that institutions (e.g. quota rules) boost women's parliamentary representation, there is little consensus in the academic literature on the relative and absolute impact other economic, cultural or societal factors have on the number of women in parliament. One variable that is particularly debated in the literature is women's labour force participation. The indicator's reported impact ranges from substantively positive to nil to even slightly negative. In this article we aim to resolve these controversies. Our pooled time series analysis—based on the largest possible data set, namely all countries for which the data are available from 1995 to 2010—indicates that the number of women in the workforce strongly influences women's parliamentary representation.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.186
Threshold uncertainty score0.610

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.069
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.273 · 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