Gender and the Collegial Face of Executive Politics: Priorities, Presence, and Power
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT This article shows, for the first time, gendered patterns in the organization and composition of collegial executive institutions below the level of the cabinet. Drawing on an original dataset of ministerial cabinet committees since the 1990s, we investigate how ministerial supply, gendered norms, and ideology affect committee priorities, women's presence, and access to power in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom. Committee priorities remain predominantly masculine, despite the increasing supply of women in all cases, but women's presence strengthens with increasing ministerial supply. However, women are regularly excluded from masculine committees and influential chairing positions on such committees. Ideology indirectly affects gendered priorities, presence and power through its effect on supply. These findings demonstrate the persistence and strength of gender as an entrenched feature of institutional design in executive politics and provide a basis for further research into how gender impacts collegiality and collective decision‐making.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it