Women Representation and Gender Equality in Different Academic Levels in Veterinary Science
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Women's participation and completion at veterinary schools has increased globally for the past few decades. However, increased female graduates have not translated into similar patterns of academic staffing. The gender distribution within each academic level at eight accredited veterinary faculties in Australia and New Zealand, 38 accredited faculties in the USA and Canada and 98 accredited faculties in Europe were analyzed. Women occupied 47.9%, 45.5% and 47.5% of the academic positions in Australia/New Zealand, the USA/Canada and Europe, respectively. Compared to their male counterparts, female academics were more likely to hold the lower ranked positions. The gender distribution is skewed toward men in the senior positions at or above associate professor level in all analyzed regions. The findings of this study confirm gender inequality in academic progression meaning there is a continued need to develop strategies to eliminate inequity in veterinary science faculties worldwide.
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 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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it