MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3126610005 · doi:10.1093/oxrep/graa051

Do technological advances reduce the gender wage gap?

2020· article· en· W3126610005 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueOxford Review of Economic Policy · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicLabor market dynamics and wage inequality
Canadian institutionsYork University
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaUniversidade do PortoInstituut Gak
KeywordsWageEconomicsTechnological changeLabour economicsLow wageEfficiency wageWage growthWork (physics)Wage shareDemographic economicsMacroeconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Gender wage gaps in developed economies have narrowed substantially in past decades: these changes are driven by institutional, cultural, and economic factors. A key economic driver shaping modern labour markets is technological change, yet there is a paucity of evidence on its direct impact on gender wage disparities. We study this question by considering how men and women are differentially exposed to the structural employment and wage changes across occupations associated with advancing technology, and how this has impacted gender wage gaps since the mid-1980s for two countries, Portugal and the United States. Our findings suggest that while women have generally been less exposed to the automation of work, this has not always led to declining gender wage gaps: at times, women have transitioned to jobs where wage levels or wage growth were lower. Non-technological changes appear at least as important in understanding the evolution of the gender wage gap.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.792
Threshold uncertainty score0.827

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.076
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.233 · 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