The Allocation of Male and Female Occupational Prestige in an Ontario Urban Area: A Quarter‐Century Replication*
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Une étude de 1975 portant sur L'évaluation du prestige des titres de profession spécifiés comme détenus par un homme ou une femme a été répétée en 2000. Les deux enquêtes ont été conduites à Kitchener‐Waterloo en Ontario. Alors que les données de 1975 accordaient un avantage de cinq points en moyenne aux hommes sur les femmes, ce fossé des sexes a disparu en 2000. Dans les postes où le travail est plus axé sur les personnes, les femmes se voient maintenant accorder un plus haut prestige que les hommes. L'article fait référence à la manière dont ces changements sociaux sont liés au cours du dernier quart de siècle à une convergence dans L'identification sexuelle des professions. Les sources de variation dans les évaluations de L'échantillonnage de 2000 sont analysées et considérées comme minimes quoique les répondants ayant un plus haut degré d'éducation classent toutes les professions légèrement à la baisse. A 1975 study on the evaluation of the prestige of occupational titles specified as held by a man or a woman was replicated in 2000. Both surveys were collected in Kitchener‐Waterloo, Ontario. While the 1975 data revealed an average five‐point advantage to men over women, this gender gap had disappeared by the year 2000. In more people‐oriented work, women are now accorded higher prestige than men. The paper refers to how these social changes are linked with convergence over the quarter century in the sex typing of occupations. Sources of variation in ratings within the 2000 sample are examined and found to be minimal, although more highly educated respondents grade all occupations slightly on the low side.
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 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 | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".