MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7132869659

Gender Inequality in the Labor Market: Trends and Mechanisms

2023· dissertation· W7132869659 on OpenAlexaff
Julia Ingenfeld

Bibliographic record

VenueTSpace · 2023
Typedissertation
Language
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicWork-Family Balance Challenges
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDisadvantagedInequalityOverworkWork (physics)Gender inequalityPosition (finance)Double burdenGender gap
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Despite significant gains made over the last decades, women—and mothers in particular—are still disadvantaged in the labor market. For example, women are less likely to be employed in the most prestigious occupations, such as managerial and professional occupations (MPOs), especially those that have been historically dominated by men. Moreover, women are more likely than men to reduce their work hours or exit the labor market after the transition to parenthood. Consequently, women more often work in position with lower levels of autonomy, lower salaries, and less beneficial working conditions. In this dissertation, I examine social change in women’s participation in (male-dominated) MPOs and illuminate two prevalent factors that past research has identified as impacting women’s participation in those occupations: motherhood and overwork. In addition, I investigate the role of the male partner’s involvement in domestic work on women’s employment after the transition to parenthood among heterosexual couples. My findings suggest that women are more likely to work in historically male-dominated MPOs with each successive cohort, although participation rates for MPOs overall have been stalling among the youngest cohorts. The prevalence of motherhood does not differ between male-dominated MPOs, non-male dominated MPOs, and other types of occupations, but women working in historically male-dominated MPOs are less likely to have more than one child. My findings further show that overwork is more prevalent in male-dominated MPOs throughout time and across all cohorts, and may be a barrier for having more than one child. Lastly, my results demonstrate that mothers who are most disadvantaged on the labor market benefit most from their partner’s involvement in child care in terms of their labor force participation. Taken together, my findings show a positive development in terms of women’s participation in the most prestigious occupations—i.e., historically male-dominated MPOs—but also suggest that gendered assumptions in the home and in the workplace still create barriers for women’s employment participation. Lastly, my results indicate that the prevalence and impact of those gendered norms varies by women’s labor market (dis)advantages.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.062

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.059
GPT teacher head0.391
Teacher spread0.331 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTSpaceSame topicWork-Family Balance ChallengesFrench-language works237,207