MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Gender Differences in Perceived Disciplinary Fairness

2004· article· en· W2006548341 on OpenAlexaff
Nina D. Cole

Bibliographic record

VenueGender Work and Organization · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicWorkplace Violence and Bullying
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDisciplinePsychologySocial psychologyEconomic JusticeExploratory researchApplied psychologyDevelopmental psychologySociologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This exploratory study coded and analysed 120 behaviours on videotaped data of 111 male and 30 female managers engaged in disciplinary discussions with one of their unionized employees. Four categories of behaviour were coded: non‐verbal communication, speech characteristics, leadership and interactional justice. A factor analysis of the results generated 14 factors, ten of which were correlated with experts’ ratings of disciplinary fairness. Female managers exhibited significantly higher levels of seven of the ten behavioural factors. Female managers also made more supportive interruptions than male managers and took more time for the disciplinary discussion, both of which were positively correlated with disciplinary fairness. The results suggest that leadership and communication styles commonly found in females may lead them to be better equipped than male managers to manage employee discipline situations.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.239 · 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

Citations32
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGender Work and OrganizationSame topicWorkplace Violence and BullyingFrench-language works237,207