MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2015530008 · doi:10.1002/job.724

Diversity and organizational innovation: The role of employee involvement

2010· article· en· W2015530008 on OpenAlexaffabout
Yang Yang, Alison M. Konrad

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Organizational Behavior · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender Diversity and Inequality
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDiversity (politics)EmpowermentEmployee researchAssociation (psychology)Employee empowermentVariation (astronomy)PsychologySocial psychologySociologyOrganizational commitmentEconomic growthEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This study examined the interactive effects of workplace diversity and employee involvement on organizational innovation. Using a sample of 182 large Canadian organizations, we found a three‐way interaction between level of employee involvement, variation in involvement, and racioethnic diversity on innovation. In organizations with high levels of employee involvement, high variation in involvement was associated with higher involvement levels among racioethnic minorities, resulting in a stronger association between diversity and innovation. Furthermore, the association between White employee involvement and innovation was significantly more positive under the condition of high involvement among racioethnic minority group members. Thus, ensuring high levels of involvement among members of historically marginalized racioethnic groups enhances the innovation effects of employee empowerment systems. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.222 · 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

Citations154
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Organizational BehaviorSame topicGender Diversity and InequalityFrench-language works237,207