Obstacles of Saudi Woman Work in the Mixed Environment: A Field Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The study aimed to identify the obstacles facing Saudi woman while working in a mixed work environment. The main study sample consisted of (223) from the health sector female affiliates and were divided into two groups. The first group consisted of (129) participants from the health sector and workers in Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) hospitals. The second group involved (94) participants from the health sector and workers in Najran, KSA hospitals. The study adopted the descriptive and analytical approach and the study instrument consisted of a questionnaire to identify the obstacles that the Saudi women encounter in the mixed environment. Results indicated that the most serious obstacles that Saudi woman encounters in the mixed work environment were social, professional, ethical, and psychological obstacles. There were statistically significant differences between the mean scores of women working in Riyadh and those women who working Najran regarding to the social obstacles in favor of women working in Najran and the ethical obstacles in favor of women working in Riyadh. There were no statistically significant differences between both groups in accordance to psychological and professional obstacles and the overall questionnaire degree. Furthermore, there were significant differences due to the nature of the work, whether a physician, nurse, or administrative employee regarding the social obstacles in favor of the woman working the administration field. There were significant differences with regard to both ethical and psychological obstacles in favor of women working in the administration field.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".