Magic Will Happen if You Gather Us in One Room: Gender Homophily and Women-Only Networking
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although networking is critical for career advancement, prior research has primarily examined women’s networking in comparison to men’s, often concluding that it plays a less instrumental role due to gendered organizational structures. Women-only networking events are organized to enable women to leverage gender homophily for mutual support and career advancement. However, the mechanisms of gender homophily in women’s networking are not straightforward. Drawing on observations of women-only networking events, interviews, and secondary data, we identify three meanings women attach to homophilic networking (status-driven, instrumental, and expressive) and show how these meanings shape networking behaviors. In networking contexts characterized by “enforced homophily,” where support is offered under the guise of benevolence, women are more aware of these differences in meanings, which prevent them from leveraging the potential benefits of networking with other women. In contexts characterized by “agentic homophily,” the relevance of these differences is less salient, empowering women to challenge, rather than reproduce, gendered organizational structures. Our research extends the understanding of gender homophily as a multifaceted force that is dynamically shaped by the context and interactions.
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 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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".