A threat in the network: STEM women in less powerful network positions avoid integrating stereotypically feminine peers
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Integrating social identity threat and structural hole theories, this work examines how social network positions affect group-based identity threats. For individuals less well positioned to bridge (or “broker”) relations between unconnected friends, stigma-by-association concerns may constrain affiliation with stereotypic targets. Three experiments ( Ns = 280, 232, 553) test whether women (vs. men) in male-dominated STEM (vs. female-dominated) majors avoid befriending a female target with feminine-stereotypic (vs. STEM-stereotypic) interests. Only STEM women with less brokerage (i.e., less ability to manage introductions to unconnected friends) in their existing friendship networks avoided befriending (pilot experiment) and socially integrating (Experiments 1 and 2) feminine- (vs. STEM-) stereotypic targets, despite standardized target similarity and competence. STEM women in particular anticipated steeper reputational penalties for befriending stereotypically feminine peers (Experiment 2). Social identity threat may lead women in STEM—especially those lacking brokerage—to exclude stereotypically feminine women from social networks, reinforcing stereotypes of women and STEM fields.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 it