19 Leveraging a comparative analysis framework for a grounded theory of women first responders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Emergency response work has historically been designed for and performed by men; yet more women than ever are conducting this work globally. Research suggests women first responders face unsupportive workplace structures and cultures. While efforts have been made to ameliorate these challenges, few studies aim to understand their degree of success and the emerging nature of gender equity in the first response professions. Aim Our study compared the occupational experiences of women firefighters, police officers, and paramedics from Southern Ontario, Canada, to develop a grounded theory on the historical and current nature of gender relations in first response professions. Methods Semi-structured interviews (n = 20) explored the individual life course of participants, focusing on resiliency and stress, diversity and inclusion, and gender and the role of professional identity. Data were analyzed sequentially by profession, in a cumulative fashion, to generate a grounded theory shaped by comparisons and iteratively tested against each profession throughout coding and analysis. Results Our grounded theory suggests that while participants attested to significant improvements to women’s inclusion in first response work, many women still face sexism and glass ceilings. Despite this, women are passionate about their work, and actively encourage other women to join the field. Further concepts related to tokenism and trailblazers, embodiment perspectives, and paramilitary organizational structures were used to contextualize the data. Conclusion Our findings guided the development of policy recommendations for stakeholders in first response professions. Methodologically, the comparative framework aligned seamlessly with the constant comparative analysis components of grounded theory. This approach contributed a unique understanding of women’s experiences that preserved complexity within the professions while also creating capacity to assess trends across the first response field. This flexibility also played an important role in the advocacy for women first responders where few women continue to occupy professional roles.
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 | 0.058 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".