The first article discusses a study where they showed that a woman leading the testing led to a higher rate of questions answered. These weren't opinion questions, they were asked math questions.
The second article is actually this one.
Where they looked at gpa before and after.
Neither of these are polls.
The point here is that giving women role models (Which is in the group of nurture, not nature), makes them perform better and it makes them more comfort to do these subjects.
The issue I have with this is that you seem to think monkeys are a better indicator of women having specific job preferences than actually asking the women themselves.
The first one doesn't really mean anything because society is not obligated to provide female professors so they perform better because of biased feelings involving sexes. The writer's conclusion is idiotic.
With the second one, they would have to ask people questions about themselves to figure out if they "under psychological threat", a "negatively stereotyped" person, etc. School tests are based on performance and can't be biased. If a person doesn't try as hard because of their own self doubt, that's on them. With any field that's competitive, there's gonna be alot of pressure and some people just don't do well in that environment.
The monkey study is just a part of what I linked and it's meant to be in context with the rest. You're ignoring the rest which is alot stronger evidence in showing that women and men have natural preferences that play the biggest role in choosing professions.