MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3195741933 · doi:10.2991/assehr.k.210806.183

The Influence of Gender Role on Gender Segregation of STEM Majors in Chinese Universities

2021· article· en· W3195741933 on OpenAlexaff
Jiale Ding, Jingxuan Gu, Ruoxin Jia, Jingjing Zeng

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research/Advances in social science, education and humanities research · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCareer Development and Diversity
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Science and technology are the primary productive forces of a country. However, in today's STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) fields, gender segregation remains an issue. Half of the world's population is female, yet women face considerable barriers and are underrepresented in STEM education and occupations. This article mainly focuses on STEM education, to explore how gender role is shaped and reinforced in high school and how it leads to gender segregation of STEM majors in Chinese universities. The findings show that gender stereotype leads female students to devalue self-cognition and self-assessment and, as a result, they often underestimate their ability in STEM disciplines. Second, the educational policy in high school causes female students to prioritize liberal art subjects at the expense of natural science subjects. Third, high school curriculum, textbooks, and other teaching materials that contain gender bias and unhealthy teacher-student interactions reinforce the stereotype of gender role. Fourth, the decisions of majors are strongly affected by traditional Chinese culture that represents the preferences and career expectations for different genders. At the end of this article, implications will be provided.

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 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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.621
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.006
Science and technology studies0.0080.023
Scholarly communication0.0010.004
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.083
GPT teacher head0.440
Teacher spread0.357 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAdvances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research/Advances in social science, education and humanities researchSame topicCareer Development and DiversityFrench-language works237,207