MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W13120181 · doi:10.4337/9781848445192

Women on corporate boards of directors : international research and practice

2008· book· en· W13120181 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueEdward Elgar eBooks · 2008
Typebook
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender Diversity and Inequality
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGlass ceilingCorporate governanceManagementPolitical scienceLawEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Contents:Introduction: Women on Corporate Boards of Directors: International Issues and OpportunitiesRonald J. Burke and Susan VinnicombePART I: INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVES1. Women Board Directors in the United States: An Eleven Year RetrospectiveLois Joy2. Women on Corporate Boards of Directors: The Canadian PerspectiveRonald J. Burke and Richard Lebranc3. The Pipeline to the Board Finally Opens: Women's Progress on FTSE 100 Boards in the UKRuth Sealy, Susan Vinnicombe and Val Singh4. Women on Corporate Boards of Directors: The French PerspectiveMairi Maclean and Charles Harvey5. New Zealand Women Directors: Many Aspire but Few SucceedRosanne Hawarden and Ralph Stablein6. 'Glacial at Best': Women's Progress on Corporate Boards in AustraliaAnne Ross-Smith and Jane Bridge7. The Quota Story: Five Years of Change in NorwayMarit Hoel8. Women on Corporate Boards of Directors: The Icelandic PerspectiveThoranna Jonsdottir9. Women on Corporate Boards of Directors in Spanish Listed CompaniesCelia de Anca10. Contrasting Positions of Women Directors in Jordan and TunisiaVal SinghPART II: RESEARCH THEMES11. Championing the Discussion of Tough Issues: How Women Corporate Directors Contribute to Board DeliberationNancy McInerney-Lacombe, Diana Bilimoria and Paul F. Salipante12. Women Directors and the 'Black Box' of Board BehaviourMorten Huse13. Do Women Still Lack the 'Right' Kind of Human Capital for Directorships on the FTSE 100 Corporate Boards?Siri Terjesen, Val Singh and Susan Vinnicombe14. Examining Gendered Experiences Beyond the Glass Ceiling: The Precariousness of the Glass Cliff and the Absence of Rewards Michelle K. Ryan, Clara Kulich, S. Alexander Haslam, Mette D. Hersby and Catherine Atkins15. On the Progress of Corporate Women: Less a Glass Ceiling than a Bottleneck?Dan R. Dalton and Catherine M. Dalton16. ION: Organizational Networking to Harness Local Power for National ImpactSusan M. Adams, Patricia M. Flynn and Toni G. Wolfman17. Women on Corporate Boards of Directors: Best Practice CompaniesHeather Foust-Cummings18. Critical Mass: Does the Number of Women on a Corporate Board Make a Difference?Sumru Erkut, Vicki W. Kramer and Alison M. KonradConclusion: Directions for Future Research on Women on Corporate Boards of DirectorsDiana Bilimoria

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.625
Threshold uncertainty score0.604

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.331
GPT teacher head0.383
Teacher spread0.052 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations60
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEdward Elgar eBooksSame topicGender Diversity and InequalityFrench-language works237,207