What Makes a Decision Fair? Relative Earnings, Gender, and Justifications for Couples’ Decision Making
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article builds on research demonstrating that inequality is widely accepted when it results from practices that are perceived to be fair. Using a survey experiment on a nationally representative sample of U.S. adults (n=3,978), the study adds new insight into the mechanisms that sustain gender inequality in relationships. Findings show that Americans’ beliefs about gender are relied on more often than economic explanations to diminish concerns about unfairness in decision making. Respondents were more likely to view decisions as fair when made by women, even though respondents often drew on seemingly gender-neutral allocation rules to justify decision making. Topic modelling of open-ended explanations also exposed how beliefs about gender are incorporated into fairness perceptions in ways that sustain men’s authority. The authors argue that the empirical patterns underpinning subjective perceptions of fairness are fundamental to understanding the persistence of inequality in gendered divisions of cognitive, emotional, and domestic labor.
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 | 0.018 | 0.072 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".