MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4394912289 · doi:10.1080/02634937.2024.2331123

Experiences of female early-career professionals in male-dominated STEM companies in Kazakhstan

2024· article· en· W4394912289 on OpenAlexaff
Aliya Kuzhabekova, Dinara Mukhamejanova, Ainur Almukhambetova

Bibliographic record

VenueCentral Asian Survey · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCareer Development and Diversity
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCareer developmentPolitical sciencePsychologySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Kazakhstan put forward elaborate initiatives to address gender segregation in the labour market. However, female professionals are still heavily underrepresented in the fields of science, technology, engineering and mathematics. Considering conflicting cultural influences on the role of women in the country and guided by the social cognitive theory, the present study explores the early career experiences of female professionals working in STEM companies in Kazakhstan. The thematic analysis of 24 semi-structured interviews with early-career female professionals showed that social structural challenges with recruitment and promotion, organization integration and work-life balance prevent women from building successful careers in STEM. It was also found that to counterbalance these challenges, female professionals develop a variety of coping strategies such as projecting a professional image and adopting a masculine interaction style, conforming to the existing status quo and challenging gender discrimination and stigmatization. Drawing from the social cognitive theory, this study revealed that conflicting gender role expectations based on traditional, Western and Soviet cultural values might disempower and undermine women’s agency in transitioning to employment in STEM.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.055
Threshold uncertainty score0.988

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.243 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations7
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCentral Asian SurveySame topicCareer Development and DiversityFrench-language works237,207