MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Performance Pay in China: Gender Aspects

2011· article· en· W1505817589 on OpenAlexaff
Lin Xiu, Morley Gunderson

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Industrial Relations · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIntergenerational and Educational Inequality Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChinaProduct (mathematics)Gender pay gapDemographic economicsEconomicsEconometricsPsychologyLabour economicsPolitical scienceMathematicsWage

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We provide an in‐depth analysis of gender differences in performance pay in China based on a unique dataset — the Life Histories and Social Change in Contemporary China — that provides information on the different components of pay including performance pay and base pay as well as a wide array of pay determining characteristic. The share of performance pay is documented and its determinants, including gender, analysed. Particular attention is paid to gender differences in the different dimensions of performance pay: the probability of receiving it; the magnitude conditional upon receiving it; and their product being the overall unconditional magnitude. Gender differences in these dimensions are decomposed into components due to male–female differences in the endowments of characteristics that explain these dimensions of pay, and gender differences that arise even when men and women have the same endowments of such characteristics with the later component, often taken to reflect discrimination.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.059
Threshold uncertainty score0.117

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.173
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.153 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations17
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of Industrial RelationsSame topicIntergenerational and Educational Inequality StudiesFrench-language works237,207