Exploring gender differences in labor markets from the perspective of the task based approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Using households survey microdata from Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Mexico and Peru, we characterize changes in employment and wages between the mid-2000s and the late-2010s emphasizing the gender dimension from the viewpoint of the task-based approach.We employ surveys from PIAAC-OECD to study the task content of jobs and create an index of routine task content (RTC) of occupations.We document five facts: (i) The proportion of routine tasks is currently higher for women than for men.(ii) The employment structure is considerably more biased towards high-RTC jobs in Latin America than in OECD countries, for both genders.(iii) There was an increase in the employment participation of low-RTC jobs during the period under study, mainly driven by movements in the occupational structure of women, especially the young and middle-aged.(iv) Wage gains were relatively higher in high-RTC occupations, with this pattern more pronounced for men than for women.(v) While there was a modest reduction in the gender wage gap, the decline was stronger in computer-intensive occupations.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".