Gender differences in scientific knowledge and attitudes toward science: a comparative study of four Anglo-American nations
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
Despite a lack of empirical verification, research analysts and populist commentators have long assumed that a key factor in explaining anti-scientific attitudes among women is their greater disinterest and ignorance of scientific developments. Using nationally representative Anglo-American data from the 1993 International Social Survey Programme (ISSP) Environment Survey, the results of this analysis question that assumption. Women in the United States, Canada, Great Britain and New Zealand are indeed less knowledgeable and hold less favorable attitudes toward science than men. However, in all but the United States, these gender differences in scientific attitudes are due to male-female disparities in educational background and religious belief, not to variations in scientific knowledge. Thus, in Canada, Great Britain and New Zealand, it is not gender per se but rather differences in social background that explain citizens' views. A somewhat different pattern emerges in the United States. Here, it is differences in levels of scientific knowledge and not demographic background, including gender, which explains public variation in attitudes toward science. The implications of these findings for both research analysts and policy makers are briefly discussed.
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.
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | Science and technology studies Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | low |
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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