MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

19 Leveraging a comparative analysis framework for a grounded theory of women first responders

2024· article· en· W4394565657 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicQualitative Research Methods and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WaterlooUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGrounded theoryComputer scienceQualitative researchSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<h3>Background</h3> 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. <h3>Aim</h3> 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. <h3>Methods</h3> 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. <h3>Results</h3> 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. <h3>Conclusion</h3> 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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.879
Threshold uncertainty score0.657

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.315
GPT teacher head0.570
Teacher spread0.255 · 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