Sexual Orientation, Work Values, Pay, and Preference for Public and Nonprofit Employment: Evidence from Canadian Postsecondary Students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite some evidence that gay men hold fewer government jobs in the U.S. than their population share would predict, analysis of two large surveys of Canadian university and college students shows no lack desire for public sector jobs among GLBTQs. Instead, we find that (1) GLBTQs are more likely than heterosexuals to prefer public and nonprofit sector employment; (2) GLBTQ career goals and work values predict a stronger desire for public and nonprofit sector jobs than do those of heterosexuals; and (3) GLBTQs expect to pay a smaller penalty for working in the public and nonprofit sectors. In partial support of public service motivation theory, we find that altruistic motives drive students to both the public and the nonprofit sectors (though desires for job security and strong health and benefit plans have a bigger impact on wanting a government job). Despite economists’ findings that the federal government pays comparable workers more than the private sector, students preparing for government jobs expect to earn less than those heading to the private sector, and students who prioritize starting salary and advancement opportunities prefer private sector jobs.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".