MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1999522639 · doi:10.1177/0734371x12453055

Anticipated Discrimination and a Career Choice in Nonprofit

2012· article· en· W1999522639 on OpenAlexaff
Eddy S. Ng, Linda Schweitzer, Seán Lyons

Bibliographic record

VenueReview of Public Personnel Administration · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicNonprofit Sector and Volunteering
Canadian institutionsUniversity of GuelphCarleton UniversityDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSalaryLesbianSexual orientationSocial psychologyValue (mathematics)PsychologyEmployment discriminationIdentity (music)Anticipation (artificial intelligence)Work (physics)Political scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As a stigmatized group, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendered (LGBT) individuals are vulnerable to employment discrimination and receive little legal protection. They have had to cope with discrimination and engage in identity management to conceal their sexual identity. This study seeks to determine whether LGBT individuals, in anticipation of discrimination, have lower initial career expectations, espouse more altruistic work values, and make career choices based on those work values, when compared to heterosexual individuals. Using data from a large survey of postsecondary students, we found that LGBT individuals, after controlling for age, visible minority status, and major of study, reported lower salary expectations than heterosexual individuals. LGBT individuals were also more likely than their heterosexual counterparts to espouse “altruistic” work values and to indicate a career choice in the nonprofit sector. We suggest that “altruism” may be an important work value that is related to a career choice in the public and nonprofit sectors.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.121
GPT teacher head0.382
Teacher spread0.261 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations83
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReview of Public Personnel AdministrationSame topicNonprofit Sector and VolunteeringFrench-language works237,207