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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The narrative surrounding the nature of relationships and interactions between and among women at work is decidedly negative, which is evident in the coverage that female competition and the queen bee syndrome receive in the media, nonfiction books, and the management and psychology literatures. In the current article, we propose a two-stage theory that is grounded in gender stereotyping to account for this narrative. In the first stage, we draw from theories of social comparison and in-group distancing to offer plausible reasons for why women’s same-sex relationships at work might be more fraught with interpersonal conflict than men’s. In the second stage, we set aside consideration of possible gender differences in same-sex conflict frequency and draw from attribution theory to propose that female same-sex conflict is more problematized by third parties than male same-sex conflict, which could produce the exaggerated perception that women have more dysfunctional same-sex workplace relationships than men. Implications for future research and gender equality in organizations are discussed.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it