Women in Science: Measuring Participation in Europe Across Disciplines, Generations and Over Time
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this research, we quantify an inflow of women into science in the past three decades. Structured Big Data allow us to estimate the contribution of women scientists to the growth of science by disciplines (N = STEMM 14 disciplines) and over time (1990-2023). A monolithic segment of STEMM science emerges from this research as divided between the disciplines in which women’s share rose most rapidly – and the disciplines in which the role of women was marginal. There are four disciplines in which 50% of currently publishing scientists are women; and five disciplines in which more than 50% of currently young scientists are women. But there is also a cluster of four highly mathematized disciplines (MATH, COMP, PHYS, and ENG) in which the growth of science is only marginally driven by women. Digital traces left by scientists in their publications indexed in global datasets open two new dimensions in large-scale academic profession studies: time and gender. The growth of science in Europe was accompanied by growth in the number of women scientists, but with powerful cross-disciplinary and cross-generational differentiations. We examined the share of women scientists coming from ten different age cohorts for 32 European and four comparator countries (the USA, Canada, Australia, and Japan). Our study sample was N = 1,740,985 scientists (including 39.40% women scientists). Three critical methodological challenges of using structured Big Data of the bibliometric type were discussed: gender determination, academic age determination, and discipline determination.
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 | 0.009 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".