Parenthood and the Gender Gap in Workplace Authority
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This article answers several related questions: does parenthood affect whether women hold positions of authority? Is there a parenthood effect on authority for men? Is the gender gap in authority explained by a more deleterious effect of parenthood on women’s in comparison to men’s representation in positions of authority? Past studies of the relationship between parenthood and workplace authority have been limited in their ability to assess a causal effect of parenthood because most have employed a static approach, measuring the presence of children and the type of job held concurrently, using cross-sectional data. Using retrospective life course data from four rounds of the Family Survey of the Dutch Population and distributed fixed-effects models, we study within-person changes in having supervisory authority among women and men in the years before, around, and after the birth of their first child. The findings show a moderate negative effect of motherhood on women’s representation in authority, which is entirely explained by a reduction in the number of hours worked. Fatherhood has no effect on men’s representation in authority. The gender gap in supervisory authority between women and men grows over time but is already very large years before the transition to first-time parenthood.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".