Women in the construction industry: Still the outsiders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The construction industry is characterised by extreme gender segregation, both horizontal and vertical. Internationally, women represent a small proportion of employees in construction, for example, 8.9 per cent of workers in the USA, 11.5 per cent in Canada, and 14.2 per cent in Japan (Catalyst, 2015). Evidence shows that not only are proportions small now, the change in figures over time is also limited. In 2002–03 women comprised 9 per cent of the construction workforce in the UK but within this there is significant horizontal segregation by occupation, with 84 per cent of these employees in secretarial work and 10 per cent in professional categories such as design and management (Gurjao nd, 16). In 2015 Randstad (2016) reported the number of women in construction in the UK as 20 per cent, with the numbers of women in management in construction moving from 6 per cent in 2005 to 16 per cent in 2015. But this report, compiled by a company within the industry, is not supported by the UK construction union, the Union of Construction, Allied Trades and Technicians (UCATT) who note that women form only 11 per cent of the industry with only 1 per cent working on a construction site in 2015. In the USA figures remain unchanged over the past five years with the United States Department of Labor identifying 9 per cent of women in construction in 2010. In Australia in 2016 11.7 per cent of employees in the industry were women (WGEA, 2016a). The proportion of women in the industry had decreased since 1995 when women formed 14.8 percent of the construction workforce (WGEA, 2016b). It is increasingly clear that the percentage of women in construction is low internationally and little has changed in the past few decades.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".