MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406982931 · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-75301-5_3

Current and Emerging Issues in Gender Equality in Education: What Does the Data Tell Us?

2025· book-chapter· en· W4406982931 on OpenAlexaff
Emma Harden-Wolfson, Lyazzat Shakirova

Bibliographic record

VenuePalgrave studies in gender and education · 2025
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender Politics and Representation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCurrent (fluid)Gender equalityPolitical scienceGender studiesSociologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This chapter identifies current and emerging issues related to gender equality in education, providing a comparative analysis of education-related gender equality indicators across Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan. Using data from UNESCO, the World Bank Gender Data Portal, the United Nations Development Programme’s Gender Inequality Index, country-level data, and other sources, the chapter is organized into four sections. First, the gendered educational landscape is examined, encompassing educational participation and attainment in compulsory and post-compulsory education across the countries. Second, the chapter explores gender differences in fields of study in higher education to understand patterns of gendered behaviour in education. Third, the chapter examines the role of female educators—teachers and researchers, and fourth, the chapter explores whether educational achievements for women are translating into societal leadership gains. The chapter concludes with brief country summaries highlighting key issues for gender equality in education. Despite presenting some statistics for the first time, caution is warranted due to the subjective nature of data and its limitations in capturing root causes and structural effects of gender inequality.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.585
Threshold uncertainty score0.682

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.184
GPT teacher head0.468
Teacher spread0.284 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePalgrave studies in gender and educationSame topicGender Politics and RepresentationFrench-language works237,207