MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7010456849

Implementing proactive gender pay equity legislation : a study of Icelandic and Canadian pay equity legislation and its future impacts on the gender wage gap

2019· dissertation· en· W7010456849 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueSkemman · 2019
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender Diversity and Inequality
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLegislationLegislatureIcelandicWageGender pay gapEquity (law)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study will be looking into the primary factors that influence the implementation of gender pay equity legislation. The central focus will be on Icelandic companies, however to understand the universality of these implementation factors, strategies, and barriers, Canadian insights will also be included in the analysis. \nThe key elements investigated in this study include, organizational gender demographics, implementation strategies, implementation barrier, key success factors, and potential long-term implications of gender pay equity legislation. The purpose of this study is to examine how organizations are applying gender pay equity legislation, and whether or not this legislation will successfully address the factors contributing to the gender wage gap. \nThe findings of this study suggest that occupational gender segregation continues to play a large part in the gender wage gap. It was also found that there are similar techniques being used to implement gender equity legislation in both Iceland and Canada. In particular, having well-structured documentation and the use of outside consultants have been identified as important factors in the implementation process. In terms of barriers and challenges, Iceland presented with fewer internal barriers than Canada, partly due to higher levels of internal support and stricter legislative enforcement. \nThe current legislative movement towards achieving equitable compensation for women and men in Iceland is a positive change, however, it is too soon to tell if it will be effective enough to eliminate the wage gap. The dominant sentiment amongst participant was that through the new legislation is a step in the right direction, it will not have a major impact on their businesses or industry as a whole. It was concluded that larger societal changes are needed to correct the underlying causes of wage discrepancies.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.138
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.005
Science and technology studies0.0240.005
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.174
GPT teacher head0.375
Teacher spread0.201 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSkemmanSame topicGender Diversity and InequalityFrench-language works237,207