MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1983328263 · doi:10.1108/17542410911004849

Cross‐gender networking in the workplace: causes and consequences

2009· article· en· W1983328263 on OpenAlexaff
Ignace Ng, Irene Hau‐Siu Chow

Bibliographic record

VenueGender in Management An International Journal · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender Diversity and Inequality
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRespondentContext (archaeology)PsychologyAffect (linguistics)Social psychologyPersonal networkOriginalityValue (mathematics)SociologyPolitical scienceCreativity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose This study seeks to examine how individual and organizational characteristics as well as attitudinal factors can affect the network composition of female managers. Another of its objectives is to examine the effect of cross‐gender network on the quit intention of female managers. Design/methodology/approach A survey questionnaire was administered, seeking information on the personal characteristics and attitudes of the 91 managers, the characteristics of the organization for which the respondent works, and the network characteristics of the respondents in Hong Kong. Findings The results show that positive attitudes towards women's leadership qualities and higher ratio of females in top management positions are associated with a lower cross‐gender instrumental network for females. Perceived discrimination or being married encourages female managers to seek a cross‐gender network. Cross‐gender networks reduce the quit intentions of female managers. Originality/value The study offers a better understanding of how networks change involves an examination of both the characteristics of the network holder and the larger context in which the network holder is located. It contributes to the scant evidence on the consequences of cross‐gender networking for female managers in the Chinese context.

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 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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.121
Threshold uncertainty score0.708

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.169
GPT teacher head0.384
Teacher spread0.215 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations14
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGender in Management An International JournalSame topicGender Diversity and InequalityFrench-language works237,207