Evidence for “Pushed Out” and “Opt Out” Factors in Women’s Career Inclusion Across the World of Work in the United States
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
There is an ongoing debate over the extent to which women “opt out” and/or are “pushed out” of various occupations ( Kossek et al., 2017 ). To advance this debate, we explore the correspondence of women’s interests in stereotypically masculine work activities with the work activities of their occupations/occupational-aspirations. We examine 42,631 responses to a survey of employed and unemployed persons in the United States and analyze associations along all six of Holland’s ( 1997 ) interest/work-activity dimensions. Overall, we find support for a “pushed out” perspective as women’s interests in hands-on/practical, analytic/scientific, and managerial/sales-related work activities are less strongly associated with being employed in occupations with those activities – in comparison to similarly interested men. However, these effect sizes are small and we find support for “opt out” dynamics in relation to hands-on/practical occupations. Altogether, our results indicate the need to continue looking beyond women’s vocational interests as explanations of their underrepresentation.
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 | 0.008 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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