Gender pay equity at a Simulated University with a Complex Compensation System
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Gender disparity emerges in the labor market as more females participate, such as gender pay discrepancy, and gender ratio. Although male and female employees perform the same tasks, females often earn less on average and have fewer opportunities for advancement than males. This imbalance might be caused by two factors: structural disparities and female lifestyle choices. Gender pay disparities may occur as a result of discrepancies in the hiring process and the base compensation that is established for distinct genders. Sometimes in the promotion process, the same opportunities are not offered to both genders, and one of the genders is disadvantaged and does not get promoted even if they deserve it. Some believe that females take fewer risks than males when seeking for promotions and delay their promotion. This lag keeps females at a lower status and creates a gender gap between male and female employees. The male-dominated workplace in some occupations may make females feel uncomfortable and cause them to perform poorly, resulting in wage disparities.Additionally, pregnancy and parental leave periods creating different kinds of wage disparity between men and women. In this study, an agent-based simulation is used to illustrate female and male work habits at the University of Saskatchewan and examine the impact of each component on each gender’s income over time. The study considers equity in assistant, associate, and full rank are the subject of this research since their salary is trackable and determined by University of Saskatchewan contracts. Most of the University of Saskatchewan’s regulations on compensation, employment, promotion, and maternal leave have been carefully examined to bring this simulation closer to reality. Various inequalities have been used in this explanatory research to depict the influence of each factor on male and female income and the duration of instability of a system when a factor strikes. The simulation is based on artificial data by way of doing explanatory research on a compensation structure and raising question about the lingering effects of gender differences of compensation.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".