No Room at the Top: Underrepresentation and Underemployment of Highly Qualified Women and Minorities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper will provide a brief overview of concepts of underrepresentation and underemployment of the talents of the labor force. Recent empirical research that addresses underrepresentation in the labor force and underemployment of job holders will be reviewed generally and with special attention to the extent of underrepresentation and underemployment of women and people of color in corporate executive, top managerial and top professional employee positions. Major US and UK studies will be highlighted. The findings of the largest national-level survey conducted to date on education-job requirement matching, completed in Canada in summer, 2004, will be summarized, again with special attention to the underemployment of women and people of color. Secondly, major barriers to equitable representation will be summarized for the highly qualified labor force in general and by gender and color in particular. Finally, current measures to create more equitable paid workplaces and close the gaps for women and people of color at the top of the employment hierarchy will be discussed briefly.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".