Organisational practices supporting women's career advancement and their satisfaction and well‐being in Turkey
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
Purpose The purpose of this study is to examine the relationship of the perceived presence of organisational practices designed to support women's career advancement and their work attitudes and satisfaction and their psychological well‐being. Design/methodology/approach Data were collected from 286 women in managerial and professional jobs working in a large Turkish bank, a 72 percent response rate. Five organisational experiences were considered: negative attitudes towards women, equal treatment, support, career barriers and male standards. Findings Women reporting more supportive organisational experiences and practices were more engaged in their work, more job and career satisfied, and indicated greater levels of psychological well‐being. Research limitations/implications Data were collected at one point in time making it difficult to determine causality. It is important to replicate the study in other industries and countries to verify the generalizability of the conclusions. Practical implications Identifies career supports and obstacles and offers guidance for organisations interested in supporting women's career advancement. Originality/value This study contributes to understanding of the role of work life experiences in women's work satisfaction and psychological well‐being.
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 | 0.004 | 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) | 0.001 | 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