Comparing measured and perceived productivity of Earth scientists during COVID-19 work-from-home initiatives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bibliometric and survey-based data are used to evaluate and compare the productivity of Earth scientists. Work-from-home initiatives have led to disproportionate impact among different genders. An individual’s perception of their own productivity is significant in understanding how equity-deserving groups are affected by disruptions to normal routines. Additionally, peer-reviewed publications are a key metric of academic productivity, as they are a vital component of career advancement. Using sex- (female vs. male) and gender-based (women vs. men) methods, this study investigates how both the perceived and measured productivity of women and men was impacted by global COVID-19 work-from-home initiatives. Here we show that in a normal year females publish proportionally to males, and that the proportion of female first authors increased between the 2019-2020 (“pre-pandemic”) and 2020-2021 (“during pandemic”) years. This finding is contrary to the perceived productivity between women and men and indicates that our perceptions may not always match reality. Although women and men are publishing at nearly identical rates based on their proportions within our field, women are harder on themselves. Support structures should be focused on women and early-career researchers as their more negative perception of self-productivity can lead to mental health issues and a lack of confidence.  
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 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".