Supportive relations in a feminized occupation: How male and female veterinarians compare
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Several traditionally male-dominated professions, including law and medicine, have experienced an influx of women over the last 30 years. We extend research on gender equality in the professions, which has often examined segmentation and stratification, by examining the integration of men and women into a traditionally male-dominated profession in terms of the emotional and instrumental support they receive from colleagues. We examine veterinary medicine as a case study because interestingly this profession has seen the most dramatic growth in the representation of women over the last 30 years - more than law or medicine. We also explore whether traditional masculine control tasks (clinic ownership and autonomy) and traditional female care tasks (animal care and client interactions) are related to integration. We analyze survey data from 384 Canadian veterinarians. Findings show that practice ownership and challenging client interactions are associated with reduced support for women, but not for men. In contrast, directly caring for animals is associated with more support for men, but this is not the case for women. We discuss the implications of differential levels of social support for the integration of women into traditionally male-dominated professions.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".