MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399969606 · doi:10.1080/1554477x.2024.2359140

“What’s Her Job?” Agentic Women, Sexism, and the Consequences for Political Candidate Emergence

2024· article· en· W4399969606 on OpenAlexaffabout
Philip Chen, Melanee Thomas, Tania Gosselin, Allison Harell

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Women Politics & Policy · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender Politics and Representation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPoliticsGender studiesPsychologySociologySocial psychologyPolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Agentic women are frequently stereotyped negatively in politics. While public opinion suggests higher levels of egalitarian gender attitudes toward women in politics, these analyses miss important variations in explicit sexism. Using a survey experiment in the Canadian multi-party context, we show that for those reporting high levels of explicit sexism, agentic women are, as potential candidates, disadvantaged compared to similarly agentic men. Given the uneven distribution of sexist attitudes among partisans, these results suggest that gender representation differences between parties can be traced both to party recruitment strategies and the political behavior of party members.

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)0.002
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.124
Threshold uncertainty score0.715

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.379
Teacher spread0.346 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations5
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Women Politics & PolicySame topicGender Politics and RepresentationFrench-language works237,207