Family Binds and Glass Ceilings: Women Managers’ Promotion Limits in a ‘Knowledge Economy’
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
This article documents macro-level trends regarding gender equity for women managers in paid workplaces and examines the importance of factors related to equitable promotion. Primary evidence is drawn from 1982, 2004 and 2010 surveys of work and learning activities of the employed Canadian labor force. These surveys provide unique national-level data on the managerial levels, qualifications, sex of supervisor and divisions of paid and unpaid labor among male and female managers which could provide benchmarks for further international surveys. Women’s representation in top-level jobs remains very restricted, and most women still manage only women. Greater employment experience and higher educational qualifications are now generally significant factors for promotion of women as well as men. But glass ceilings maintained by men and women’s own primary responsibility for household work remain the major obstacles to equitable promotion. Women managers’ increasing economic power remains contingent on facing up to these interrelated barriers.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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