MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1990227296 · doi:10.1177/1056492602250518

Doing What Feels Right

2003· article· en· W1990227296 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 Management Inquiry · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender Diversity and Inequality
Canadian institutionsHEC Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDiversity (politics)Affect (linguistics)Sample (material)Quality (philosophy)PsychologySocial psychologyTeam compositionSociologyEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Faced with confusing and sometimes contradictory research results linking team composition to performance, recent research on top management teams (TMTs) has begun to investigate hitherto unexplored variables that might influence the hypothesized relationships. Increasing attention is being paid to the nature and quality of TMT strategic decision-making processes, with scholars arguing that diversity per se will not affect performance outcomes unless that diversity is allowed to make itself felt through systematic debate. The findings presented here suggest that diversity and debate may not be enough; a powerful CEO's emotional reactions, rooted in character, may short-circuit the presumed linkages between diversity, decision-making processes, and performance. This has important theoretical and methodological implications for this research stream, helping to explain why existing large-sample research in this area has failed to produce consistent and robust results. Suggestions are made for ways to improve theorizing and research design in this important research domain.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.806
Threshold uncertainty score0.840

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 communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.114
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.213 · 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