MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4225927390 · doi:10.1038/s41562-022-01470-z

Within-job gender pay inequality in 15 countries

2022· article· en· W4225927390 on OpenAlexaff
Andrew M. Penner, Trond Petersen, Are Skeie Hermansen, Anthony Rainey, István Boza, Marta M. Elvira, Olivier Godechot, Martin Hällsten, Lasse Folke Henriksen, Feng Hou, Aleksandra Kanjuo Mrčela, J. E. King, Naomi Kodama, Tali Kristal, Alena Křı́žková, Zoltán Lippényi, Silvia Maja Melzer, Eunmi Mun, Paula Apascaritei, Dustin Avent‐Holt, Nina Bandelj, Gergely Hajdú, Jiwook Jung, Andreja Poje, Halil Sabanci, Mirna Safi, Matthew Soener, Donald Tomaskovic‐Devey, Zaibu Tufail

Bibliographic record

VenueNature Human Behaviour · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicLabor market dynamics and wage inequality
Canadian institutionsStatistics Canada
FundersEuropean Social FundEuropean CommissionMinisterio de Ciencia e InnovaciónAlexander von Humboldt-StiftungJavna Agencija za Raziskovalno Dejavnost RSAgencia Estatal de InvestigaciónNorges ForskningsrådAgence Nationale de la RechercheNational Science Foundation
KeywordsInequalityGender pay gapPay EquityDemographic economicsLabour economicsGender inequalityEconomicsPsychologyMathematicsWage

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Extant research on the gender pay gap suggests that men and women who do the same work for the same employer receive similar pay, so that processes sorting people into jobs are thought to account for the vast majority of the pay gap. Data that can identify women and men who do the same work for the same employer are rare, and research informing this crucial aspect of gender differences in pay is several decades old and from a limited number of countries. Here, using recent linked employer-employee data from 15 countries, we show that the processes sorting people into different jobs account for substantially less of the gender pay differences than was previously believed and that within-job pay differences remain consequential.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.263
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.238 · 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
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

Citations67
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNature Human BehaviourSame topicLabor market dynamics and wage inequalityFrench-language works237,207