Gender homogeneity in philosophy and methodology of economics: evidence from publication patterns
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
This study examines gender diversity among authors in philosophy and methodology of economics, comparing it to the disciplines of economics and philosophy. Using bibliometric methods, we find that philosophy and methodology of economics, as an interdisciplinary field, consistently had a lower share of women authors than its parent disciplines, which are the two social sciences and humanities disciplines that are the furthest from gender parity. Although homogeneity compounding generally characterizes the whole field of philosophy and methodology of economics, one small and temporary subfield, making contributions to heterodox economics, structural realism, and the discussion on pluralism in economics, constituted a pocket of gender diversity. Alongside a more general discussion of possible reasons behind the striking gender imbalance in the field, we also elaborate on possible reasons for the limited size and duration of this pocket of diversity.
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 | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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