MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414890789 · doi:10.1080/19761597.2025.2565792

Gender, engineering, and innovation in South Korea: an empirical investigation of the industrial patriarchy of the Southeastern region

2025· article· en· W4414890789 on OpenAlexaff
So Young Kim

Bibliographic record

VenueAsian Journal of Technology Innovation · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicIndian Economic and Social Development
Canadian institutionsKootenay Association for Science & Technology
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPatriarchyEmpirical researchEmpirical evidenceWork (physics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study examines the role of gender in the industrial development and innovation of South Korea’s Southeastern heavy manufacturing clusters through the concept of ‘industrial patriarchy.’ The term denotes institutional practices and norms historically rooted in the 1970s and 1980s that reinforced gendered patterns of education and employment in the region’s industrial cities. The study examines gender marginalisation in regional innovation policies and workforce segregation, utilising text mining, policy document analysis and regression analyses. The results show that women are systematically excluded from engineering employment and from policy discourses on regional innovation, which, in turn, sustains gender segregation in education and work. At the same time, firm-level regression analyses indicate that women’s share of the workforce has a positive effect on innovation. Thus, the persistent under-representation of women in the heavy industrial sectors of the Southeastern region has negative consequences for regional innovation performance. By highlighting how gender, engineering and territorial context interact, these findings provide anuanced understanding of the structural barriers shaping industrial transformation and contribute new evidence to debates on the gendered dynamics of innovation in East Asian manufacturing regimes.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.087
Threshold uncertainty score0.238

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.187 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAsian Journal of Technology InnovationSame topicIndian Economic and Social DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207