Gender and early career status: variables of participation at an international marine science conference
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
Abstract Conference participation is an important part of academic practice and contributes to building scientific careers. Investigating demographic differences in conference participation may reveal factors contributing to the continued under-representation of women in marine and ocean science. To explore the gender and career stage dimensions of participation in an international marine science conference, preferences of presentation type (oral/poster) as well as acceptance and rejection decisions were investigated using 5-years of data (2015–2019) from an International Marine Science Conference. It was found that early career scientists were more likely to be women, while established scientists were more likely to be men. Although overall, gender did not show a significant effect on the decisions to “downgrade” requests for oral presentations to poster presentations, early career scientists were significantly more likely to be downgraded than established scientists. Given that more women were often early career scientists, more women than men had their presentations downgraded. Other indicators and evidence from conference prize-giving and recognition awards point to a gender gap remaining at senior levels, highlighting the need for further actions as well as monitoring and researching conference participation from a gender perspective.
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 | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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