Disparities in Leadership Roles for Women in the Modern Workspace with special reference to Healthcare and Corporate: A case analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many professions impose obstacles for women, leading to the disproportionate presence of men in top positions. Research indicates that women occupy less than one-third of leadership roles worldwide, with figures of just 37 per cent in the US and 3 per cent in Canada. Despite women constituting a majority in certain industries and achieving parity with men in entry-level positions, their representation in leadership roles still needs to improve. Traditional notions regarding women, including gender biases, hinder their potential and impede their ability to seize opportunities for leadership advancement. This could adversely affect women's self-esteem and ability to perform effectively under pressure. This study investigates gender disparities in leadership roles and notes that women who attain positions of authority in their organisations face limitations in realising their full potential. Further, it delves into the historical context, societal norms, entrenched institutional structures, and ingrained cultural biases contributing to this imbalance. The study extends to explore the reasons impacting women's employment prospects, including challenges in achieving work-life balance, absence of coaching opportunities, and unequal access to professional development programs. Finally, the research examines the effectiveness of policies and initiatives — such as mentorship programs, inclusive and multicultural promotion practices, and legislative reforms aimed at fostering a more equitable and inspiring work — implemented by legislators and organisations to address this gender gap. This case study research employs exploratory and descriptive methodologies to illuminate the barriers hindering women's ascent to leadership roles.
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 | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".