MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1523585933 · doi:10.1108/02683940010310346

Friendships of women and men at work

2000· article· en· W1523585933 on OpenAlexaff
Dorothy Markiewicz, Irene Devine, Dana Kausilas

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Managerial Psychology · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender Diversity and Inequality
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan UniversityConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologySocial psychologyFriendshipSocializationQuality (philosophy)Context (archaeology)Work (physics)Job satisfactionInterpersonal relationshipSalaryInterpersonal communicationDevelopmental psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Interpersonal networks and quality of women and men’s close work friendships in three work settings were investigated to assess potential impact of gender socialization and organizational structure factors on patterns of interaction within same‐sex and opposite‐sex work friendships, and to examine whether friendship quality would predict salary and job satisfaction and if this would differ as a function of the sex of the employee or the friend. Findings indicate that homophilous ties are stronger than opposite sex ties, which support previous research on relationships in the work environment. Work context influenced the nature of relationships among women and men. In contrast to research on friendships outside the workplace, work friendships involving women were not consistently rated as more satisfying and ratings varied across work settings. Quality of close male friendships was more associated with career success and job satisfaction than quality of close female friendships.

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.073
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.258 · 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 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

Citations102
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Managerial PsychologySame topicGender Diversity and InequalityFrench-language works237,207