{"record_type":"pith_number_record","schema_url":"https://pith.science/schemas/pith-number/v1.json","pith_number":"pith:2020:HHBEY5ML2PHBQAGLLLZPGQ72F5","short_pith_number":"pith:HHBEY5ML","schema_version":"1.0","canonical_sha256":"39c24c758bd3ce1800cb5af2f343fa2f6d0a39c20e85efbb66ca868bb1b1ef26","source":{"kind":"arxiv","id":"2009.10830","version":1},"attestation_state":"computed","paper":{"title":"Explaining Gender Differences in Academics' Career Trajectories","license":"http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/","headline":"","cross_cats":[],"primary_cat":"cs.SI","authors_text":"Andrei Cimpian, Aniko Hannak, Daniel B. Larremore, Kenneth Joseph","submitted_at":"2020-09-22T21:33:03Z","abstract_excerpt":"Academic fields exhibit substantial levels of gender segregation. To date, most attempts to explain this persistent global phenomenon have relied on limited cross-sections of data from specific countries, fields, or career stages. Here we used a global longitudinal dataset assembled from profiles on ORCID.org to investigate which characteristics of a field predict gender differences among the academics who leave and join that field. Only two field characteristics consistently predicted such differences: (1) the extent to which a field values raw intellectual talent (\"brilliance\") and (2) wheth"},"verification_status":{"content_addressed":true,"pith_receipt":true,"author_attested":false,"weak_author_claims":0,"strong_author_claims":0,"externally_anchored":false,"storage_verified":false,"citation_signatures":0,"replication_records":0,"graph_snapshot":true,"references_resolved":false,"formal_links_present":false},"canonical_record":{"source":{"id":"2009.10830","kind":"arxiv","version":1},"metadata":{"license":"http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/","primary_cat":"cs.SI","submitted_at":"2020-09-22T21:33:03Z","cross_cats_sorted":[],"title_canon_sha256":"1b8890911d4957905c49db3ebb9c9395575ae43e3183d86912a7a0957b41056c","abstract_canon_sha256":"d927b5fd7f9918b5c1fd65fec6130564ad5ddcbaa25510c0ae7937feaf1f08b6"},"schema_version":"1.0"},"receipt":{"kind":"pith_receipt","key_id":"pith-v1-2026-05","algorithm":"ed25519","signed_at":"2026-07-05T01:37:26.341221Z","signature_b64":"ONxXynjD1tlfywaI3fg5Ct6eIT33zSvW7LZxEuSflyhLL1MDnYGjUXD5F0JKWXSvcLLdD9p4oSOiANZfwLP4Dw==","signed_message":"canonical_sha256_bytes","builder_version":"pith-number-builder-2026-05-17-v1","receipt_version":"0.3","canonical_sha256":"39c24c758bd3ce1800cb5af2f343fa2f6d0a39c20e85efbb66ca868bb1b1ef26","last_reissued_at":"2026-07-05T01:37:26.340156Z","signature_status":"signed_v1","first_computed_at":"2026-07-05T01:37:26.340156Z","public_key_fingerprint":"8d4b5ee74e4693bcd1df2446408b0d54"},"graph_snapshot":{"paper":{"title":"Explaining Gender Differences in Academics' Career Trajectories","license":"http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/","headline":"","cross_cats":[],"primary_cat":"cs.SI","authors_text":"Andrei Cimpian, Aniko Hannak, Daniel B. Larremore, Kenneth Joseph","submitted_at":"2020-09-22T21:33:03Z","abstract_excerpt":"Academic fields exhibit substantial levels of gender segregation. To date, most attempts to explain this persistent global phenomenon have relied on limited cross-sections of data from specific countries, fields, or career stages. Here we used a global longitudinal dataset assembled from profiles on ORCID.org to investigate which characteristics of a field predict gender differences among the academics who leave and join that field. Only two field characteristics consistently predicted such differences: (1) the extent to which a field values raw intellectual talent (\"brilliance\") and (2) wheth"},"claims":{"count":0,"items":[],"snapshot_sha256":"258153158e38e3291e3d48162225fcdb2d5a3ed65a07baac614ab91432fd4f57"},"source":{"id":"2009.10830","kind":"arxiv","version":1},"verdict":{"id":null,"model_set":{},"created_at":null,"strongest_claim":"","one_line_summary":"","pipeline_version":null,"weakest_assumption":"","pith_extraction_headline":""},"integrity":{"clean":true,"summary":{"advisory":0,"critical":0,"by_detector":{},"informational":0},"endpoint":"/pith/2009.10830/integrity.json","findings":[],"available":true,"detectors_run":[],"snapshot_sha256":"c28c3603d3b5d939e8dc4c7e95fa8dfce3d595e45f758748cecf8e644a296938"},"references":{"count":0,"sample":[],"resolved_work":0,"snapshot_sha256":"258153158e38e3291e3d48162225fcdb2d5a3ed65a07baac614ab91432fd4f57","internal_anchors":0},"formal_canon":{"evidence_count":0,"snapshot_sha256":"258153158e38e3291e3d48162225fcdb2d5a3ed65a07baac614ab91432fd4f57"},"author_claims":{"count":0,"strong_count":0,"snapshot_sha256":"258153158e38e3291e3d48162225fcdb2d5a3ed65a07baac614ab91432fd4f57"},"builder_version":"pith-number-builder-2026-05-17-v1"},"aliases":[{"alias_kind":"arxiv","alias_value":"2009.10830","created_at":"2026-07-05T01:37:26.340284+00:00"},{"alias_kind":"arxiv_version","alias_value":"2009.10830v1","created_at":"2026-07-05T01:37:26.340284+00:00"},{"alias_kind":"doi","alias_value":"10.48550/arxiv.2009.10830","created_at":"2026-07-05T01:37:26.340284+00:00"},{"alias_kind":"pith_short_12","alias_value":"HHBEY5ML2PHB","created_at":"2026-07-05T01:37:26.340284+00:00"},{"alias_kind":"pith_short_16","alias_value":"HHBEY5ML2PHBQAGL","created_at":"2026-07-05T01:37:26.340284+00:00"},{"alias_kind":"pith_short_8","alias_value":"HHBEY5ML","created_at":"2026-07-05T01:37:26.340284+00:00"}],"events":[],"event_summary":{},"paper_claims":[],"inbound_citations":{"count":1,"internal_anchor_count":1,"sample":[{"citing_arxiv_id":"2501.18129","citing_title":"Revisiting gender bias research in bibliometrics: Standardizing methodological variability using Scholarly Data Analysis (SoDA) Cards","ref_index":32,"is_internal_anchor":true}]},"formal_canon":{"evidence_count":0,"sample":[],"anchors":[]},"links":{"html":"https://pith.science/pith/HHBEY5ML2PHBQAGLLLZPGQ72F5","json":"https://pith.science/pith/HHBEY5ML2PHBQAGLLLZPGQ72F5.json","graph_json":"https://pith.science/api/pith-number/HHBEY5ML2PHBQAGLLLZPGQ72F5/graph.json","events_json":"https://pith.science/api/pith-number/HHBEY5ML2PHBQAGLLLZPGQ72F5/events.json","paper":"https://pith.science/paper/HHBEY5ML"},"agent_actions":{"view_html":"https://pith.science/pith/HHBEY5ML2PHBQAGLLLZPGQ72F5","download_json":"https://pith.science/pith/HHBEY5ML2PHBQAGLLLZPGQ72F5.json","view_paper":"https://pith.science/paper/HHBEY5ML","resolve_alias":"https://pith.science/api/pith-number/resolve?arxiv=2009.10830&json=true","fetch_graph":"https://pith.science/api/pith-number/HHBEY5ML2PHBQAGLLLZPGQ72F5/graph.json","fetch_events":"https://pith.science/api/pith-number/HHBEY5ML2PHBQAGLLLZPGQ72F5/events.json","actions":{"anchor_timestamp":"https://pith.science/pith/HHBEY5ML2PHBQAGLLLZPGQ72F5/action/timestamp_anchor","attest_storage":"https://pith.science/pith/HHBEY5ML2PHBQAGLLLZPGQ72F5/action/storage_attestation","attest_author":"https://pith.science/pith/HHBEY5ML2PHBQAGLLLZPGQ72F5/action/author_attestation","sign_citation":"https://pith.science/pith/HHBEY5ML2PHBQAGLLLZPGQ72F5/action/citation_signature","submit_replication":"https://pith.science/pith/HHBEY5ML2PHBQAGLLLZPGQ72F5/action/replication_record"}},"created_at":"2026-07-05T01:37:26.340284+00:00","updated_at":"2026-07-05T01:37:26.340284+00:00"}