Gender and Promotion at Canadian Universities<sup>*</sup>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
De 1984 à 1999, pour tous les professeurs à plein temps des universités canadiennes, les modèles de temps de défaillance accéléré démontrent que le temps médian de promotion de professeur adjoint à professeur agrégé est de 0,4 année plus long pour les femmes. Il n'y a pas de pic correspondant au refus de titularisation après cinq à sept ans de service, et les augmentations salariales des promotions sont stables avec le temps. Le temps médian de promotion de professeur agrégéà professeur titulaire est d'un an plus long pour les femmes que le temps médian pour les hommes, soit 8,3 années. Les différences entre les disciplines et entre les institutions n'ont qu'un petit impact sur les évaluations des différences entre les genres dans les promotions. From 1984 to 1999, for all full‐time faculty members at Canadian universities, accelerated failure time models show that the median time to promotion from assistant to associate professor is 0.4 years longer for women. There is no peak corresponding to denial of tenure after five to seven years of service and rates of promotion are stable over time. Women's median time for promotion from associate to full professor is one year longer than the median for men, 8.3 years. Variation between disciplines and between institutions has little impact on estimates of gender differences in promotion.
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 | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.002 |
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".