MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2996061237

Applying a Gender Lens to the Predictors of High-tech Career Intentions among Engineering Students in Bangladesh

2019· article· en· W2996061237 on OpenAlexaff
Samina M. Saifuddin, Lorraine Dyke, Maria Rasouli

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Gender, Science, and Technology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCareer Development and Diversity
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHigh techPerceptionPsychologyDominance (genetics)Career developmentSocial psychologyGender studiesSociologyPolitical science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper explores the extent to which perceived job attributes, perceived male dominance in the high-tech sector, and perceptions of the media’s gendered representation of high-tech might influence students’ intentions to pursue a career in the high-tech sector. A survey was conducted with 209 female and 640 male engineering undergraduate students in Dhaka, Bangladesh. The results suggested that both female and male students were attracted to high-tech when they viewed it as a challenging career.  Gender role stereotypes also, however, influenced the career intentions of both women and men.  Although they are influenced by different types of gendered norms – women by attitudes toward the suitability of high-tech careers for women and men by male media images of high-tech – the gendering of high-tech work influenced both women and men. The results contradict previous findings that female students perceive high-tech work as boring, uncool, and nerdy but support previous findings on the negative effect of gender stereotyping on female students’ interest in pursuing a high-tech related career

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)0.003
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 score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.039

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.246 · 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

Citations5
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Gender, Science, and TechnologySame topicCareer Development and DiversityFrench-language works237,207