Gender Inequality in Research and Service amongst Natural Sciences and Engineering Professors in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Little is known about gender inequality in Canadian professors’ workloads (e.g., if women perform more service than men). To address this gap, we explore the distribution of research and service work amongst Natural Sciences and Engineering (NSE) professors from the Atlantic and Prairie provinces. We further investigate whether women are disproportionately responsible for activities intended to improve gender equity (e.g., youth recruitment targeting girls to account for women’s underrepresentation in NSE); and ascertain the professional and personal effects of heavy service demands. Statistical analyses of a cross-sectional online workplace experiences survey indicated that men spent significantly more time on research than women, while women spent significantly more time on service than men. Women reported significantly more time spent on professional development and outreach activities than men, specifically. Women’s heavier service load was associated with decreased research productivity, longer terms as assistant professors; and below average salaries, as compared to men of similar rank and experience. Moreover, women’s well-being was negatively affected by heavy service. Accordingly, women’s disproportionate responsibility for service is an obstacle to gender equity in academic NSE in Canada; and suggest that initiatives intended to improve gender equity in NSE may be detracting from women’s research time.
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 | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".