MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7034779273

Women, mining and gender: experiences in Greater Sudbury

2023· dissertation· en· W7034779273 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueLu Zone Ul (Laurentian University) · 2023
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicQuality and Management Systems
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHarassmentWork (physics)Face (sociological concept)NarrativeThematic analysisNegotiationKinshipResistance (ecology)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

My interdisciplinary research explores the gendered work experiences of women in
\nmining. Statistics Canada confirms women’s unequal participation in the industry, and the
\nMining Industry Human Resources Council reports that only about fifteen percent of the
\nCanadian mining labour force are women. The literature attests that women often face challenges
\nof acceptance in male-dominated, blue-collar industries. They disproportionately experience
\ndiscrimination and harassment in industries in which they are the minority, yet the literature does
\nnot fully address women’s work experiences in this industry and it is important to do so given
\nmining’s important place in Canada’s economy, both nationally and regionally. My study
\nexplores narratives about women’s experiences in this male workplace culture. In 2020, I
\ninterviewed 35 people who work in the mining industry in the city of Greater Sudbury, Ontario
\nto ask women (N=24) about their direct work experiences and workplace interactions, and men
\n(N=11) about their work experiences and workplace interactions with women. I used methods of
\nanalysis that “bricolaged” approaches of thematic and critical discourse analysis. My findings
\nsupport the need for further initiatives toward equity, diversity, and inclusion, not only in mining,
\nbut in other gender-imbalanced industries. Women described how they experienced resistance to
\nthe achievement of acceptance and respect at work. Many experienced harassment and
\ndiscrimination, and spoke about the masculine organizational culture present in their work
\nenvironments. Nevertheless, they also described job satisfaction in the work that they perform,
\nand described bonds of kinship with peers. However, these bonds were usually described in
\ngendered terms. Women revealed that the camaraderie they seek most to achieve is to be “one of
\nthe boys” or “one of the guys.” At the same time, they spoke about bonds of “sisterhood” in
\nmining, and how the mining industry offers a space where they celebrate alternate expressions of
\nfemininity, such as being a “tomboy.” Men confirmed that resistance toward women in mining
\nexists, and that notions of gender essentialism continue to impact perceptions about traits linked
\nto men and women. In sum, my study reveals that the masculine organizational culture of the
\nmining industry is complex. The purpose of my interdisciplinary, community-based study was to
\nunderstand this complexity and offer solutions for creating more equitable, diverse and inclusive
\nwork cultures within the industry for all workers.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.224
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.192 · 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