That experiment was done in STEM academia recently, and showed a 2:1 hiring advantage for women.

http://www.pnas.org/content/112/17/5360.abstract

It should also be noted that the earlier study, which showed a smaller effect and only if the resumes were calibrated to be (a) mediocre and (b) precisely calibrated to be the same, was done in Psychology. Which is, of course, a field dominated by women and maybe not the typical "STEM" that we think about when we talk about the underrepresentation of women in tech.

Those two findings in turn gel with a recent French study that showed bias in grading in favor of the underrepresented gender in a particular field (though the bias was stronger in favor of women than in favor of men).

http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/46681/...

And of course there was the recent trial (not an experiment AFAICT) in Australia to reduce gender bias:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-30/bilnd-recruitment-tria...

"The trial found assigning a male name to a candidate made them 3.2 per cent less likely to get a job interview. Adding a woman's name to a CV made the candidate 2.9 per cent more likely to get a foot in the door."

UPDATE: I was looking for one more thing, and finally found it. Despite the fact that the study showing bias against women is much weaker, it has been cited several times more often than the study showing bias for women (table near the bottom). https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/rabble-rouser/201707/wh...