MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408815587 · doi:10.1177/08912432251326916

Empowered by Adversity? Exit, Voice, and Silence in the Aftermath of Gender Discrimination at Work

2025· article· en· W4408815587 on OpenAlexaff
Claire Corsten, Renzo Daviddi, Jan Doering

Bibliographic record

VenueGender & Society · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender Diversity and Inequality
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSilenceWork (physics)PsychologySocial psychologyEngineeringArtAesthetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Social psychological research suggests that workplace discrimination harms women’s self-confidence and mental health, which may lead them to remain silent or quit their jobs after facing discrimination. However, feminist scholarship argues that discrimination can generate feminist consciousness and resistance. To interrogate these conflicting expectations, we draw on in-depth interviews with professional women to examine exit, voice, and silence in discrimination’s aftermath. We find that some women remain silent or exit organizations in search of less hostile environments. Others, however, develop feminist consciousness, voice complaints, and sometimes accomplish hard-fought changes within their organizations. To explain these divergent responses, we identify support networks as a crucial mechanism. Support networks help women avoid self-blame and rumination by resolving the ambiguity that frequently obscures discrimination. Support networks also spread awareness of discrimination and generate feminist solidarity. In doing so, they encourage women to contest negative treatment by exercising voice. Implications for the study of workplace discrimination, the debate over the stalled gender revolution, and occupational segregation are discussed.

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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.310
Threshold uncertainty score0.331

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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.235 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGender & SocietySame topicGender Diversity and InequalityFrench-language works237,207