Gender representation and academic achievement among <scp>STEM‐interested</scp> students in college <scp>STEM</scp> courses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Substantial gender equity gaps in postsecondary degree completion persist within many science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) disciplines, and these disparities have not narrowed during the 21st century. Various explanations of this phenomenon have been offered; one possibility that has received limited attention is that the sparse representation of women itself has adverse effects on the academic achievement-and ultimately the persistence and graduation-of women who take STEM courses. This study explored the relationship between two forms of gender representation (i.e., the proportion of female students within a course and the presence of a female instructor) and grades within a sample of 11,958 STEM-interested undergraduates enrolled in 8686 different STEM courses at 20 colleges and universities. Female student representation within a course predicted greater academic achievement in STEM for all students, and these findings were generally stronger among female students than male students. Female students also consistently benefitted more than male students from having a female STEM instructor. These findings were largely similar across a range of student and course characteristics and were robust to different analytic approaches; a notable exception was that female student representation had particularly favorable outcomes for female students (relative to male students) within mathematics/statistics and computer science courses.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".