Not for the Profit, But for the Training? Gender Differences in Training in the For‐Profit and Non‐Profit Sectors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In this article, we use Canadian‐linked employer–employee data to examine gender differences in receiving firm‐sponsored training. We find that women in the for‐profit sector are less likely to receive classroom training and receive fewer classroom training courses. However, we find the opposite in the non‐profit sector, where women are more likely to receive both classroom and on‐the‐job training, and also receive more classroom training courses. We show that women's worse training opportunities in the for‐profit sector mainly operate within workplaces. We find no evidence that gender gaps in training in the for‐profit sector are driven by lower probabilities of accepting training offers, child or family commitments, weaker labour market attachment or worker self‐selection. We also find that gender differences in expected changes in wages and training opportunities between the two sectors can explain a large portion of women's higher probability of employment in the non‐profit sector. Finally, decomposition results suggest that part of the gender wage gap in the for‐profit sector, which is twice as large as in the non‐profit sector, can be explained by gender differences in training.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".