MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1409912113 · doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.06.353

The Effects of Innovative Features of Women Managers on their Business Performance: The Food Exporter Companies in Aegean Region Sample

2015· article· en· W1409912113 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Nezih Metin Özmutaf, Elif Aktekin, Bülent Ergani, Koray Çıta

Bibliographic record

VenueProcedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender Diversity and Inequality
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCronbach's alphaSample (material)MarketingScope (computer science)BusinessValue (mathematics)Variance (accounting)PerceptionQuarter (Canadian coin)PsychologyAccountingGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The main aim of this research is to determine perceptions of innovative features of women managers in food exporter companies in Aegean Region on their business performance. The questionnaire prepared on this subject and on January 2015–March 2015 was applied to the 123 women managers working in food exporter companies in Aegean Region. At the end of the research in the 20 scope proposition collected in the eight factors; it was determined that within the framework of innovative features, women managers ownership of the mission and vision, care about career development (f1), to see opportunities, to be brave, to be open to learning (f2), to be conciliatory and to be convincing (f3), to be prescience and to be creative (f4), to be solution-oriented and to be open to innovation (f5), to care about cooperation, research and high communication (f6), to be emotional and abstract thinking (f7), high confidence and to be competitive (f8), affected business performances of them in the advanced positive way. For the 20 propositions, the alpha value of Cronbach is 0,726. Eight factors overall variance is explained at %79,174 levels.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.290
Threshold uncertainty score0.735

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.174
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.156 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations9
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProcedia - Social and Behavioral SciencesSame topicGender Diversity and InequalityFrench-language works237,207