MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4292409716 · doi:10.3390/socsci11080367

How Has the Gender Earnings Gap in Ireland Changed in Thirty Years?

2022· article· en· W4292409716 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Michelle Barrett, Karina Doorley, Paul Redmond, Barra Roantree

Bibliographic record

VenueSocial Sciences · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicLabor market dynamics and wage inequality
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEarningsMicrodata (statistics)WageEconomicsDemographic economicsDistribution (mathematics)Labour economicsQuantileGlass ceilingInequalityQuantile regressionGender gapQuarter (Canadian coin)DemographyEconometricsGeographyPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Since 1987, the wages of women in Ireland have been growing faster than those of men. This, coupled with a decrease in the average hours worked by men, has resulted in a reduction in the gender earnings gap in Ireland, most notably at the bottom of the earnings distribution. This paper provides a descriptive analysis of the growth of male and female wages, weekly earnings, and differences in working patterns across the wage and earnings distribution in Ireland over the last three decades, using detailed microdata covering the period 1987–2019. Using a Oaxaca–Blinder decomposition approach, based on unconditional quantile regressions for each time period, we also show how the explained and unexplained components of the gender wage gap have changed across the wage distribution. We find that the mean and median gender gap in earnings fell by one-sixth and one-quarter, respectively, between 1987 and 2019. This change is attributable to the faster growth of women’s wages compared to men’s and some convergence in the average hours worked by men and women. However, there has been relatively stable structural inequality at the top of the wage and earnings distribution over the past three decades, which points towards a persistent glass ceiling in Ireland.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.149
Threshold uncertainty score0.396

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.119
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.147 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations6
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSocial SciencesSame topicLabor market dynamics and wage inequalityFrench-language works237,207