Artificial Intelligence, Big Data, and Cloud Infrastructures: Policy Recommendations for Enhancing Women's Participation in the Tech-Driven Economy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigates the underrepresentation of women in Artificial Intelligence (AI), Big Data, and Cloud Infrastructures, exploring the barriers and challenges they face and assessing the effectiveness of current policies and initiatives to promote gender diversity within the tech industry. Employing quantitative research methods, the study used a survey distributed to 572 female professionals in tech-related roles across various industries, achieving a 67.9% response rate. Multiple regression analysis was utilized to test four main hypotheses concerning barriers to entry and advancement, the inclusivity of educational programs, the impact of diverse teams on innovation and performance, and the effectiveness of gender-inclusive policies. Key findings indicate that the type of organization and specific tech sectors significantly influence the barriers experienced by women. Notably, gender diversity within teams correlates strongly with improved innovation and performance. However, educational and training programs often fail to be sufficiently inclusive, underscoring the need for programs better tailored to women's needs in tech fields. Moreover, the study confirms that implementing gender-inclusive policies substantially increases women's participation in tech roles, especially when these policies are applied long-term. Based on the findings, recommendations are made for adopting comprehensive, inclusive practices at organizational and educational levels, promoting diversity in team composition and leadership, committing long-term to effective policy implementation, and developing supportive networks through mentorship and sponsorship programs. These measures are aimed at reducing gender disparities and enhancing the integration of women into the high-tech economy. The study underscores the critical role that strategic policy-making and organizational change play in fostering an inclusive tech environment that not only addresses gender disparities but also enhances overall industry innovation and performance.
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 | 0.018 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.003 |
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".