The Gender Gap Tracker: Using Natural Language Processing to measure gender bias in media
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We examine gender bias in media by tallying the number of men and women quoted in news text, using the Gender Gap Tracker, a software system we developed specifically for this purpose. The Gender Gap Tracker downloads and analyzes the online daily publication of seven English-language Canadian news outlets and enhances the data with multiple layers of linguistic information. We describe the Natural Language Processing technology behind this system, the curation of off-the-shelf tools and resources that we used to build it, and the parts that we developed. We evaluate the system in each language processing task and report errors using real-world examples. Finally, by applying the Tracker to the data, we provide valuable insights about the proportion of people mentioned and quoted, by gender, news organization, and author gender. Data collected between October 1, 2018 and September 30, 2020 shows that, in general, men are quoted about three times as frequently as women. While this proportion varies across news outlets and time intervals, the general pattern is consistent. We believe that, in a world with about 50% women, this should not be the case. Although journalists naturally need to quote newsmakers who are men, they also have a certain amount of control over who they approach as sources. The Gender Gap Tracker relies on the same principles as fitness or goal-setting trackers: By quantifying and measuring regular progress, we hope to motivate news organizations to provide a more diverse set of voices in their reporting.
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 | 0.009 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".