Affichage des articles dont le libellé est Site web. Afficher tous les articles
Affichage des articles dont le libellé est Site web. Afficher tous les articles

dimanche 18 août 2019

Tribune No Fake Science

La tribune originale se trouve ici.



Nous, scientifiques, journalistes et citoyens préoccupés, lançons un cri d’alerte sur le traitement de l’information scientifique dans les médias, ainsi que sur la place qui lui est réservée dans les débats de société. À l’heure où la défiance envers les médias et les institutions atteint des sommets, nous appelons à une profonde remise en question de toute la chaîne de l’information, afin que les sujets à caractère scientifique puissent être restitués à tous et à toutes sans déformation sensationnaliste ni idéologique et que la confiance puisse être restaurée sur le long terme entre scientifiques, médias et citoyens.
 
Dans une démocratie, les journalistes portent une lourde responsabilité, puisque de la liberté dont ils et elles disposent, ainsi que de la qualité de l’information livrée, dépend la qualité du débat public et des choix qui en découlent. La méthode scientifique, de son côté, permet de produire des connaissances fiables pouvant servir de base de réflexion pour les politiques publiques portant sur des questions complexes telles que l’alimentation, la santé publique ou l’écologie [1]. Il apparaît alors évident que scientifiques et journalistes doivent travailler main dans la main : les premiers ne devant pas s’isoler médiatiquement par crainte de voir leurs travaux déformés, les seconds ne pouvant se permettre de travestir ni le travail des premiers, ni les faits.
C’est sur ce dernier point que nous alertons les acteurs et actrices des médias. Nous assistons aujourd’hui à un dévoiement grandissant du travail des scientifiques. Leurs résultats ne sont bien souvent mis en avant que s’ils confortent des opinions préexistantes. Dans le cas contraire, certains iront sous-entendre leur rémunération par un lobby malveillant. Soyons clairs : l’état de nos connaissances ne saurait être un supermarché dans lequel on pourrait ne choisir que ce qui nous convient et laisser en rayon ce qui contredit nos opinions. Il existe en effet des consensus scientifiques sur des sujets aussi divers que :
  • La santé :
    • La balance bénéfice/risque des principaux vaccins est sans appel en faveur de la vaccination [2,3].
    • Il n’existe aucune preuve de l’efficacité propre des produits homéopathiques [4].
  • L’agriculture :
    • Aux expositions professionnelles et alimentaires courantes, les différentes instances chargées d’évaluer le risque lié à l’usage de glyphosate considèrent improbable qu’il présente un risque cancérigène pour l’humain [5,6,7].
    • Le fait qu’un organisme soit génétiquement modifié (OGM) ne présente pas en soi de risque pour la santé [8].
  • Le changement climatique :
    • Le changement climatique est réel et d’origine principalement humaine [9].
    • L’énergie nucléaire est une technologie à faible émission de CO2 et peut contribuer à la lutte contre le changement climatique [10].
Ce ne sont pas de simples opinions. Ce sont les conclusions issues de la littérature scientifique et soutenues par des institutions scientifiques fiables, comme l’OMS, l’Académie Européenne des Sciences, l’Académie Nationale de Médecine, l’Académie d’Agriculture, ou encore le GIEC.
Bien entendu, la science n’a pas réponse à tout. Il existe des questions qui n’ont pas conduit à un consensus clair, voire qui restent sans réponse. Il est alors tout à fait légitime pour un média de présenter et d’expliquer le débat qui a lieu. Si un consensus existe, le ou la journaliste doit être capable de l’identifier, de chercher à le comprendre et à en rendre compte. Il n’est pas souhaitable de donner autant de poids à un fait scientifique dûment établi qu’à sa négation. Il serait par exemple impensable qu’après 15 minutes d’un sujet sur la station spatiale internationale, l’on donne 15 minutes d’antenne à un adepte de la Terre plate.
Nous comprenons que des « marchands de doute », y compris certains scientifiques, aient tenté et tentent encore de détourner le public du consensus. Cependant, les journalistes se trompent de cible s’ils et elles croient que les scientifiques sont leurs ennemis. Ces derniers risqueraient de s’éloigner plus encore des journalistes. Enfin, nous soulignons la différence entre les échelles de temps scientifique et médiatique. La surinterprétation de résultats préliminaires et petites avancées sitôt contredits ou nuancés brouille le message adressé au public. S’il est légitime de chercher à informer dans les délais les plus brefs, cette réactivité peut s’avérer contre-productive, en particulier sans les clés de compréhension de l’actualité scientifique.
Il est urgent que la place de l’information scientifique dans nos médias et dans le débat public soit revue, pour éviter de creuser le fossé entre scientifiques et journalistes. Réfléchissons ensemble à la façon de rendre à la science la place qu’elle mérite. Pour un débat public apaisé et rationnel, pour le bien de notre vie politique, pour nos concitoyens. « La science n’a pas de patrie », nous dit Louis Pasteur. Nous ajoutons qu’elle ne saurait avoir de parti-pris idéologique.

[1] Assemblée Nationale
Résolution sur les sciences et le progrès dans la République. Session ordinaire de l’Assemblée Nationale du 21 février 2017.
[2] Académie nationale de Médecine, Académie des Sciences
Les difficultés de l’information du public sur les vaccinations. Académie nationale de médecine - Académie des Sciences. Novembre 2011.
[3] OMS
10 menaces pour la santé mondiale en 2019. OMS. Consulté le 20 février 2019.
[4] EASAC
L’homéopathie : nuisible ou utile ? Les scientifiques européens recommandent une approche fondée sur la preuve scientifique. Académie des Sciences. Communiqué de presse du vendredi 29 septembre 2017.
[5] EFSA Journal
Conclusion on the peer review of the pesticide risk assessment of the active substance glyphosate. Autorité Européenne de Sécurité des Aliments (EFSA). EFSA Journal, 12 novembre 2015.
[6] FAO
FAO specifications and evaluations for agricultural pesticides - Glyphosate. Consulté le 20 février 2019.
[7] ANSES
Avis de l’Anses sur le caractère cancérogène pour l’homme du glyphosate. 12 février 2016.
[8] OMS
Sécurité sanitaire des aliments - questions fréquentes sur les aliments génétiquement modifiés. OMS. Mai 2014.
[9] GIEC
Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution du 1er groupe de travail au 5e rapport du GIEC, 2013.
[10] GIEC
Réchauffement climatique de 1,5°C - Rapport spécial du GIEC. Chapitre 2 : voies d’atténuation compatibles avec 1,5°C dans le contexte du développement durable. GIEC. Consulté le 20 février 2019.
Droit d’auteur : ce texte est disponible sous licence Creative Commons attribution CC BY-ND 4.0 ; plus de détails ici

De nombreuses critiques ont été faites sur cette tribune, vous trouverez de nombreuses réponses à ces critiques dans l'interview d'un des membres créateur de la tribune:


Vous pouvez également retrouver certaines de ces critiques sur un papier de "Les Décodeurs (Le Monde)", et les réponses sur les liens qui suivent:
Les critiques des Décodeurs: Le Monde
Les réponses de No Fake Science: version Twitter, version unroll


Voici également une vidéo et une page de blog qui expliquent plus précisément le problème avec le traitement médiatique des informations scientifiques.
le lien de blog
la vidéo:


Les critiques et leurs réponses sont dans les liens ci-dessus, mais je vais développer le point qui m'a le plus dérangé (ainsi que la raison pour laquelle les rédacteurs de la tribune ne pouvaient pas éviter cette critique)
A titre personnel, je trouve surtout dommage que les sujets donnés en exemple ne sont pas assez mis en perspective et que les tournures de phrases sont alambiquées (ce qui peut passer pour de la manipulation). La raison est que la tribune avait un nombre de signes limités pour être publiée dans les médias, et qu'il fallait un panel d’exemples assez large qui va du consensuel au polémique (pour justifier la critique des médias et faire un peu de bruit, mais aussi conforter le lecteur sur d'autres points)... Donc parler de points spécifiques qui sont moins (mal) traités dans les médias généralistes.
Cette absence de mise en perspective ouvre la tribune aux critiques: "vous présentez les sujets comme des consensus alors qu'ils font encore débat".  Et effectivement il y a encore des débats sur ces sujets, mais pas sur le contenu des phrases...
- "La balance bénéfice/risque des principaux vaccins est sans appel en faveur de la vaccination": ce qui ne veut pas dire que les vaccins sont inoffensifs, seulement qu'ils sont globalement beaucoup plus positifs que négatifs.
- "Il n’existe aucune preuve de l’efficacité propre des produits homéopathiques", ce qui ne veut pas dire qu'il n'y a pas un effet placebo.
- "Aux expositions professionnelles et alimentaires courantes, les différentes instances chargées d’évaluer le risque lié à l’usage de glyphosate considèrent improbable qu’il présente un risque cancérigène pour l’humain" ce qui ne veut pas dire qu'il n'y a aucun effet sur certaines faunes.
- "Le fait qu’un organisme soit génétiquement modifié (OGM) ne présente pas en soi de risque pour la santé" ce qui ne veut pas dire que certains OGM peuvent présenter des risques.
- "Le changement climatique est réel et d’origine principalement humaine" ce qui ne veut pas dire qu'il n'y a pas une part d'origine autre qu'humaine.
- "L’énergie nucléaire est une technologie à faible émission de CO2 et peut contribuer à la lutte contre le changement climatique" ce qui ne veut pas dire qu'il n'y a pas de problème de sécurité ou de déchets.

Je pense que ça aurait moins porté à confusion de préciser les limites des affirmations (mais encore une fois, ils étaient limités par le nombre de signes et la tribune a au moins l'avantage d'ouvrir le débat). De plus, il ne faut pas oublier que le cœur de la tribune n'est pas de défendre un de ces six sujets, mais de remettre en cause la qualité de la science présentée dans les médias généralistes.

[edit]:
Il y a également un podcast de "La Méthode Scientifique France Culture" qui à fait une émission intéressante sur le sujet.
lien vers la page d'origine: ici

De quoi souffre la science dans les médias ? Le journalisme doit-il être remis en cause en ce qui concerne l’actualité scientifique ? Manque de visibilité ? Trop de sensationnalisme ? Manque d’éclairage sur la démarche de la recherche et le travail des chercheurs ?



jeudi 15 août 2019

[EN] Différences de salaire femme/homme aux US: une influence des heures travaillées

Post de blog qui compare les salaires femme/homme aux Etat-Unis selon des critères de temps de travail et de statut familial afin d'identifier ce qui peut causer la différence de salaire selon le genre

Le site web d'origine est ici: https://visme.co/blog/wage-gap/
Ci-dessous une copie (avec une mise en page moins bonne) dans le cas où le site d'origine disparaîtrait

[Edit]: il semblerait que des résultats similaires existent en France selon cette page Wikipédia: ici

 --------

 Sur le même sujet, une vidéo d'"Heu?reka" en VF

 --------- 

(copie du blog / premier lien)

Is the Difference in Work Hours the Real Reason for the Gender Wage Gap? [Interactive Infographic]

Federico Anzil
Written by:
Federico Anzil

Every year, the Department of Labor issues a report on the pay gap between women and men.
Women earn a median of $30,0001 per year, while men earn $40,000 per year. In other words, working women earn 75% of what men earn.
But this gap doesn’t take into account the fact that on average, men work more hours than women. According to U.S. census data, men spend an average of 41.0 hours per week at their jobs, while women work an average of 36.3 hours per week.
Many argue that gender discrimination explains a large part of the difference in earnings. Others argue that parenthood and gender roles usually affect women's earnings more than men.
To better understand the pay gap, we classified the respondents according to their marital and parenthood status2. The gap is dramatically higher between married couples versus singles without children. For married parents, the gap is even greater.
Nominal-Wage-by-Sex-and-Group-Weighted-Medians gender wage gap
Created with Visme
Hourly-Wage-by-Sex-and-Group-Weighted-Medians gender wage gap
But we also found that married fathers work even more than other men, while married mothers work less than married women without kids.
We analyzed the pay gap across hundreds of U.S. occupations. According to our research, in most occupations, the main source of the pay gap lies in the difference between the number of hours spent at work by women and men, and marital status and parenthood explain almost all this difference in working times.
The different behavior of women and men3 has an impact on the gender wage gap. As we will see below, the decision of who does most of the work outside versus who stays at home influences the pay gap in two ways: it modifies the nominal income, but it also influences how much women and men earn per each hour worked4.

A few specific examples

Let's take a look at the most common occupation in the US: Managers. This occupation is representative of the overall trend we see in the United States.
Median-nomimal Salary Managers gender wage gap
Single male managers without kids earn a median of $60,000 per year, while single female managers without kids earn $58,000 per year. On average, single male managers work 43.7 hours per week, while single female managers work 42.3 hours per week.
This means that men earn 3.4% more but work 3.5% more hours per week.
But when we look at the pay gap between married couples, we see a different picture. Both female and male married managers do have a higher salary. But men earn much more than women.
Working-Hours-of-Managers gender wage gap
Male married managers without kids earn a median of $90,000, while female married managers without kids earn a median of $62,000. A pay gap of 31%. In other words, women earn $0.69 for each dollar earned by their male counterparts.
A large part of this gap is explained by the number of hours spent at work. Men tend to work more after they marry. The average weekly working hours of males increase 4.3%, while women keep working the same quantity of hours per week. This explains a part of the gap increase.
But the time spent at work does not explain all of the gender pay gap. Married men managers without kids also earn more for each hour at work: they earn $38.40 per hour while married women without kids earn only $28.70. That means that for each hour spent at their jobs, male married managers without kids earn about 34% more than women. As we will see in detail below, the different hourly rate is related to job market trends.
We can see the same pattern across occupations like school teachers, secretaries, nurses, customer service representatives, and a lot of other professions: a small pay gap for singles without kids and a larger pay gap for married people.

Exceptions to the overall trend

We have seen that, for the most common occupations, there is almost no absolute pay gap for singles without kids, and this gap could be explained by the difference in time spent at work. But there are some occupations that do show a gap for this group of people.
Notable examples are drivers, retail salespersons, supervisors and janitors. Interestingly, we can see the same general pattern in these occupations: the uncontrolled gap increases dramatically for married couples, even if they do not have kids.
Retail-Salespersons-(Hourly-Wage) gender wage gap
Created with Visme
Driver-Sales-Workers-and-Truck-Drivers-(Hourly-Wage)
The same general pattern repeats itself in occupations where single women without kids earn more than their male counterparts. Some of them are secretaries, customer service representatives, cooks, stock clerks, office clerks and receptionists.
secertaries-and-administrative-assistants,-hourly-wage gender wage gap Office-Clerks-Hourly-Wage gender wage gap
In all of these occupations, the pay gap in favor of women reverts if they marry: married men still earn more than married women.

More time at work also means higher wages

Now, let’s look closely at the different hourly wages paid to women and men. The data shows that there is a persistent difference in the hourly rate earned by women and men, specially for married women and men. But the data also shows that men work more than women.
After taking a closer look at the data, we found a relationship between the hourly wage and the time spent at work. The average hourly pay increases as the number of hours worked per week increases. This is true for both sexes.
In the following chart, we plotted the hourly pay for women and men. To isolate the effect of marriage and parenthood, we took into account only singles without kids.
Hourly-wage-per-total hours-worked-per-week-women-men gender wage gap
In the next chart, we can see the average number of hours worked for each group:
Hours-per-Week-by-Sex-and-Group-Weighted-Mean gender pay gap visme
For the relevant range of hours worked per week, the average hourly pay increases as the time spent at work increases.
Because men tend to work more hours than women, especially if they are married, and even more if they are married parents, this could explain a large portion of the pay gap.
Also, the previous chart shows that on average, single women without kids are getting paid more than men for every hour spent at work. This could mean that if women worked the same amount of hours as men do, and other conditions remained the same, there would be no pay gap for this group5.

What about age and experience?

It is important to note that age and job experience are also relevant factors in the gender gap debate. To isolate the possible effects that age and job experience may have in the pay gap for each of the different groups, we plotted the weighted average of working hours per age for single women and men without kids.
Weighted-average-of-working-hours-per-week-SINGLE-MEN-AND-WOMEN-WITHOUT-KIDS2 gender wage gap
Created with Visme
For singles without kids, there is a very small gap at every age. But for married couples, there is a significant gap in working hours at every age.
Weighted-average-of-working-hours-per-week-MARRIED-MEN-AND-WOMEN-WITHOUT-KIDS2 gender wage gap Weighted-average-of-working-hours-per-week-MARRIED-PARENTS2 gender wage gap
If we take into account how the hourly wage varies as men and women get older, the hourly wage of men increases more than the hourly wage of women. The same pattern can be seen in all three groups.
Weighted-wage-per-age-SINGLE-MEN-AND-WOMEN-WITHOUT-KIDS gender wage gap visme Weighted-wage-per-age-MARRIED-MEN-AND-WOMEN-WITHOUT-KIDS gender wage gap Weighted-average-of-working-hours-per-week-MARRIED-PARENTSWeighted-average-of-working-hours-per-week-MARRIED-PARENTS gender wage gap
The charts above demonstrate that job experience is correlated with the time spent at work through the years. As years pass, men accumulate more practice and training than women. The job market pays more if the worker has more experience. In other words, the gap widens as men acquire more experience than women6.

So what's the real cause of the gender wage gap?

In this article, we found that one of the main sources of the gender pay gap is the fact that, on average, women and men devote a different number of hours to their jobs, specially after marriage and parenthood.
The literature on gender pay gap is very extensive. Different papers focus on diverse causes to explain it. Two of the most mentioned reasons are gender discrimination and motherhood and gender roles.
Gender discrimination against women occurs if a woman is paid less than a man for doing the same job.
If we consider that the quantity of hours devoted to a job determines whether we consider a job to be the same as another, the data doesn’t support the idea of gender discrimination at the aggregate level.
The hourly pay rate for married women is lower than for married men on average, but a probable explanation is because the job market pays less per hour if the number of hours worked decreases, and married women tend to work less. The same pattern can be seen in almost every occupation.
Also, men tend to devote more time to work, thus acquire more experience as years pass by, and the job market pays more if the worker has more experience.
This doesn’t mean that gender discrimination doesn’t exist. Our analysis just shows that, at the aggregate level, most of the gap is not explained by gender discrimination.
Regarding the second aspect of the pay gap, societal ideas of gender roles influence the behavior of women and men. Also, biological factors related to parenthood do play a role in the creation of differences in preferences. Namely, women get pregnant and women breastfeed. These differences between sexes could be a plausible explanation of why women tend to spend more time at home versus their couples, especially after marriage and parenthood7.
To conclude and to recap, we can say that, according to our analysis, job market forces and gender preferences in relation to marital status and parenthood could explain almost all of the pay gap. Most of the gap is not the result of gender discrimination.

Methodology

Data Source

We used IPUMS USA to extract the data of the American Community Survey 2017.
Some characteristics of this sample are:
- 1-in-100 national random sample of the population.
- The data include persons in group quarters.
- This is a weighted sample.
- The smallest identifiable geographic unit is the PUMA, containing at least 100,000 persons. PUMAs do not cross state boundaries.
The ACS is the largest household survey that the Census Bureau administers.
The number of cases in this data set is 3,190,040.
We selected the following variables:
- NCHILD Number of own children in the household
- YNGCH Age of youngest own child in household
- SEX Sex
- AGE Age
- MARST Marital status
- OCC Occupation
- UHRSWORK Usual hours worked per week
- INCWAGE Wage and salary income
- PERWT Person weight

Description of the Variables

PERWT
PERWT indicates how many persons in the U.S. population are represented by a given person in an IPUMS sample.
PERWT should be used when conducting a person-level analysis of any IPUMS sample.
NCHILD
NCHILD counts the number of own children (of any age or marital status) residing with each individual. NCHILD includes step-children and adopted children as well as biological children. Persons with no children present are coded "0."
YNGCH
YNGCH reports the age of the youngest own child (if any) residing with each individual, regardless of the child's age or marital status. The highest legitimate age for YNGCH is 98. YNGCH includes step-children and adopted children as well as biological children. Persons with no own children present are coded 99.
SEX
SEX reports whether the person was male or female.
AGE
AGE reports the person's age in years as of the last birthday.
MARST
MARST gives each person's current marital status.
OCC
OCC reports the person's primary occupation, coded into a contemporary census classification scheme. Generally, the primary occupation is the one from which the person earns the most money; if respondents were not sure about this, they were to report the one at which they spent the most time. Unemployed persons were to give their most recent occupation. For persons listing more than one occupation, the samples use the first one listed.
Codenames can be obtained from this url:
https://usa.ipums.org/usa/volii/occ_acs.shtml
UHRSWORK
UHRSWORK reports the number of hours per week that the respondent usually worked, if the person worked during the previous year. The census inquiry relates to the previous calendar year, while the ACS and the PRCS uses the previous 12 months as the reference period.
UHRSWORK is a 2-digit numeric variable that reports the number of hours per week that the respondent usually worked, if the person worked during the previous year. The census inquiry relates to the previous calendar year, while the ACS and the PRCS uses the previous 12 months as the reference period. UHRSWORK specific variable codes for missing, edited, or unidentified observations, observations not applicable (N/A), observations not in universe (NIU), top and bottom value coding, etc. are provided below if applicable by Census year (and data sample if specified).
UHRSWORK Specific Variable Codes
00 = N/A
99 = 99 hours (Top Code)
INCWAGE
INCWAGE reports each respondent's total pre-tax wage and salary income - that is, money received as an employee - for the previous year. The censuses collected information on income received from these sources during the previous calendar year; for the ACS and the PRCS, the reference period was the past 12 months. Sources of income in INCWAGE include wages, salaries, commissions, cash bonuses, tips, and other money income received from an employer. Payments-in-kind or reimbursements for business expenses are not included. See the comparability discussion below for further information.
Amounts are expressed in contemporary dollars, and users studying change over time must adjust for inflation (See INCTOT for Consumer Price Index adjustment factors). The exception is the ACS/PRCS multi-year files, where all dollar amounts have been standardized to dollars as valued in the final year of data included in the file (e.g., 2007 dollars for the 2005-2007 3-year file). Additionally, more detail may be available than exists in the original ACS samples.
User Note: ACS respondents are surveyed throughout the year, and amounts do not reflect calendar year dollars. While the Census Bureau provides an adjustment factor (available in ADJUST), this is an imperfect solution. See the ACS income variables note for further details.
INCWAGE is a 7-digit numeric code reporting each respondent's total pre-tax wage and salary income - that is, money received as an employee - for the previous year. INCWAGE specific variable codes for missing, edited, or unidentified observations, observations not applicable (N/A), observations not in universe (NIU), top and bottom value coding, etc. are provided below by Census year (and data sample if specified).
User Note: Amounts are expressed in contemporary dollars, and users studying change over time must adjust for inflation.
INCWAGE Specific Variable Codes
999999 = N/A
999998 = Missing

Data Preparation

We used Python to import and filter the data. Python is a general-purpose programming language. The libraries Pandas and Numpy libraries were used to import and filter the data.
We removed observations less than 16 years old, unemployed who never worked, not in labor force who last worked more than 5 years ago.
We removed observations that reported N/A or missing wage or salary income.
We removed observations with a code of 0 hours worked
To isolate any possible effect caused by marked differences between women and men when they reach older ages, we took into account only people younger than 70 years old.
To calculate the hourly wage, we used the value 52.143 to calculate how many weeks are in a year. We calculated the number of hours worked per year for each observation, multiplying UHRSWORK ( the number of hours per week that the respondent usually worked, if the person worked during the previous year) by this value.
To arrive at the hourly wage, we divided the wage and salary income for the previous year (INCWAGE) by the number of hours worked per year.
To consider if a person is a parent, we took into account if there is an own child residing with each individual and the age of the youngest child. For this study, we chose the age of 18 as the limit to consider if a person is a parent.
We classified observation according to their marital and parenthood status (according to our definition of parent).
  • If an observation is single and no parent, we assigned it to the group “singles no children”
  • If an observation is married and no parent, we assigned it to the group “married no children”
  • If an observation is married and parent, we assigned it to the group “married with children”
After all this cases had been removed, our sample consisted in 1,509,403 observations.

Descriptive Statistics

To calculate the statistics, we used R and Python. R is a programming language for statistical computing. We used the R library dplyr to create subsets of the sample.
We calculated the weighted statistics for:
  • wage and salary income
  • hours worked
  • hourly wage
For the wage and salary income, we chose the median as the descriptive statistic. Because the mean can be influenced by extreme scores. That means that a small number of high wages could significantly affect the mean, but not the median.
The hourly wage also represent the median.
In the case of the hours worked we chose the mean because there is a natural limit on the worked hours per week, so extreme values cannot be present (the top code for UHRSWORK is 99).
For the occupations, we also merged the dataset with the occupations names. Occupation names can be found at:
https://usa.ipums.org/usa/volii/occ_acs.shtml

Notes


  1. Median pre-tax wage and salary income. Only working people younger than 70. Not filtering out any outlier, for the rest of the article we filtered out cases that we consider abnormal and not representative. See the methodology section for more information.

  2. To isolate the effect of parenthood and marital status, we took into account only three groups: Not married without children, married without children and married with children. Further research could also take into account more categories, like single parents.

  3. Different choices can be agreed upon and voluntary decisions of both members of the couple, although influenced by sociological aspects and gender roles.

  4. To calculate the hourly pay, we used the average number of hours per week that the respondent usually worked.

  5. Or a small gap in favor of women.

  6. Also, not plotted here, the difference in worked hours slightly increases as men and women get older.

  7. These can be agreed and voluntary decisions of both member of the couple, although, influenced by sociological aspects and gender roles.

  8. Steven Ruggles, Sarah Flood, Ronald Goeken, Josiah Grover, Erin Meyer, Jose Pacas, and Matthew Sobek. IPUMS USA: Version 8.0 [dataset]. Minneapolis, MN: IPUMS, 2018. https://doi.org/10.18128/D010.V8.0

[EN] Ecart entre population et scientifique sur des sujets importants

Voici un site internet qui publie des données montrant l'écart de vue entre les citoyens et les scientifiques américains sur de nombreux sujets (entre autres: OGM, recherche animale, pesticide, réchauffement climatique, nucléaire, vaccins, ... )

https://www.pewinternet.org/interactives/public-scientists-opinion-gap/