MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1963802206 · doi:10.1177/0170840605046490

Walking the Talk? Gendered Rhetoric vs. Action in Small Firms

2005· article· en· W1963802206 on OpenAlex
Jennifer E. Cliff, Nancy Langton, Howard E. Aldrich

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.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueOrganization Studies · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender Diversity and Inequality
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFemininityAction (physics)BureaucracyRhetoricSociologySocial psychologyBusinessPublic relationsPsychologyGender studiesPolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study challenges the assumption that male and female business leaders establish gender-stereotypic organizational characteristics in their firms. Data collected from 229 businesses in Vancouver, Canada, indicate that an owner’s sex has no effect on the extent of a firm’s bureaucracy or the femininity of its employment relationships. These findings hold even in situations theoretically conducive to eliciting gender stereotypes. Rather than conforming primarily to the archetypically masculine model of organizing, both male and female owners manage their firms with a mix of masculine and feminine approaches. Subsequent analyses revealed, however, that business owners tend to talk as if they organize and manage their firms in different (and gender-stereotypic) ways, even though they do not do so in practice. This finding may help explain the persistent belief that a leader’s sex leaves an identifiable imprint on organizational characteristics.

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)0.000
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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.255
Threshold uncertainty score0.650

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.191
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.144 · 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