MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2234304167

Evolution of Gender Differences in Occupational Mobility and Wages

2011· preprint· en· W2234304167 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Kerem Cosar, Sekyu Choi

Bibliographic record

VenueRePEc: Research Papers in Economics · 2011
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicLabor market dynamics and wage inequality
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWageCurrent Population SurveyQuarter (Canadian coin)Occupational mobilityDemographic economicsLabour economicsEconomicsOccupational segregationGender gapPopulationWork (physics)DemographyGeographySociology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The U.S. gender wage gap shrank steadily during the last quarter of the past century. Concurrently, the occupational composition of women converged to that of men as they left the home-sector, entered previously male dominated professional and managerial occupations, and started switching occupations as frequently as their male colleagues. Previous work has associated these gender-related labor market trends with either technological or institutional changes but did not decompose the outcomes in a unified general equilibrium setting. This paper attempts to do that. Our contribution is twofold. First, we structurally estimate gender-specific occupational entry and mobility cost parameters using Current Population Survey data. We find that the cost of switching to professional and managerial occupations relative to clerical occupations is 42% to 67% higher for women than it is for men. We also find a declining gap over time. Second, we simulate the estimated model to address the following question: what is the fraction of the reduced gender wage gap that can be attributed to the decreased mobility costs for women, and to shifts in the occupational wage structure?

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.089
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.216 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRePEc: Research Papers in Economics→Same topicLabor market dynamics and wage inequality→French-language works237,207→