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

Friendships of women and men at work

2000· article· en· W1523585933 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

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.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.462
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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