Gender differences in Australian research grant awards, applications, amounts, and workforce participation
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
Abstract We modelled two decades (2000–20) of Australian national competitive grants according to lead investigator gender. We also explored whether gender differences in awarded grants mirrored application rates and/or research workforce participation by gender. We found that fewer awarded grants were led by women than men; however, overall success rates of grant applications did not vary according to lead investigator gender. There were fewer women than men in the research workforce. The award rate (awarded grants relative to workforce participation) was slightly higher for women than men. Most of these observed gender differences were largest at senior-career levels. Together, these patterns imply that fewer women in the research workforce and leading grant applications have resulted in fewer awarded grants led by women than by men. We offer public policy measures to address women’s retention and progression in the research workforce.
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 | 0.039 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.068 | 0.258 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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 it