Workplace decision-making in the trades: Impact of masculine attitudes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The majority of existing research on gender in the trades focuses on the personal experiences of women working in the trades. As the trades are still male dominated, the present study investigated tradesmen’s adherence to male role norms in relation to workplace safety behaviours and perceptions of co-worker competence. Participants were presented with a vignette that depicted a common, yet potentially unsafe, workplace task in which either a male or female hypothetical coworker was available to assist. Next, participants completed questions pertaining to the safety situation outlined in the vignette. Participants also completed questionnaires pertaining to the safety situation outlined in the vignette. Participants also completed questionnaires of adherence to male role norms, neosexist beliefs, perceptions of their actual male and female co-workers' abilities, and attitudes toward workplace safety. Results indicated that participants showed no gender bias when selecting a hypothetical helper in the situation; rather, adherence to safety protocls appeared to take precedence. Further analaysis revealed that for participants assigned to a vignette featuring a hypothetical male co-worker, there was a negative correlation between strength of adherence to male role norms and perceptions of actual female co-workers' general workplace abilities. For participants assigned to a vignette featuring a hypthetical male co-worker, there was a negative correlation between strength of adherence to male role norms and perceptions of actual co-workers' general safety behaviours on a job site. Possible reasons for these findings, limitations of this study, and future research directions are 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.
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 | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 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".