MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4384560461 · doi:10.56367/oag-039-10764

Sex-based labour market segregation and women's perceptions of entrepeneurship

2023· article· en· W4384560461 on OpenAlexaffabout
Vartuhí Tonoyan, Robert Strohmeyer, P. Devereaux Jennings

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen Access Government · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender Diversity and Inequality
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSalaryEntrepreneurshipPerceptionWageArgument (complex analysis)Government (linguistics)Scale (ratio)Labour economicsDemographic economicsPolitical scienceGender studiesSociologyEconomicsPsychologyLawGeographyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sex-based labour market segregation and women's perceptions of entrepeneurship Here Professors Tonoyan, Strohmeyer, and Jennings investigate sex-based labour market segregation and women's perceptions of entrepreneurship. As noted in a prior Open Access Government article, women tend to participate in entrepreneurial activity at lower rates than men within most countries included in the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor. Numerous plausible reasons for this gender gap exist. A large-scale study by Professors Vartuhi Tonoyan (California State University, Fresno), Robert Strohmeyer (University of Mannheim), and Jennifer E. Jennings (University of Alberta) put forth and examined the argument that women are likely to possess less favourable perceptions than men, on average, of how easy it would be to start a business. These scholars further argued that this disparity can be attributed to sex-segregated positions within traditional wage-and-salary employment, which present structural disadvantages for women’s entrepreneurship.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.109
GPT teacher head0.367
Teacher spread0.258 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen Access GovernmentSame topicGender Diversity and InequalityFrench-language works237,207