The interplay of female empowerment and subjective beliefs about women in 51 countries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The durability of gender inequality in contemporary societies raises questions about the development and diffusion of inegalitarian beliefs about the roles of men and women in politics and economics. Recent comparative research suggests the empowerment of women in politics is important for promoting egalitarian beliefs about women in authoritative political roles. This study extends on this perspective by examining how female empowerment in politics and economics interplays with beliefs about the relative competency of women in these institutions. We argue the empowerment of women in politics and economics is important for reducing inegalitarian beliefs about women in these institutions, but the prevalence of these beliefs hinders female empowerment in these institutions. We test these arguments using data on 86,324 respondents in 51 countries from the fifth and sixth waves of the World Value Survey. Estimates from hierarchal linear models show individuals possess more egalitarian beliefs about women in countries with greater female empowerment in politics and economics and this effect is amplified among male respondents. In addition, estimates from seemingly unrelated regression models show the prevalence of inegalitarian gender beliefs among both men and women is associated with lower levels of female empowerment. However, the prevalence of these beliefs among male respondents exerts the greatest effect on female empowerment in politics and economics. Overall, this study shows gender beliefs and the empowerment of women in politics and economics act as mutually constitutive forces of gender inequality and ideologies in contemporary society.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".