MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2071960630 · doi:10.1108/10595420910942270

Glass ceiling: role of women in the corporate world

2009· article· en· W2071960630 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Kalpana Pai, Sameer Vaidya

Bibliographic record

VenueCompetitiveness Review An International Business Journal incorporating Journal of Global Competitiveness · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender Diversity and Inequality
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGlass ceilingGender diversityOriginalitySample (material)Ethnic groupValue (mathematics)PopulationDiversity (politics)Ceiling (cloud)ManagementGeographyBusinessPolitical scienceSociologyDemographyEconomicsSocial scienceQualitative researchLawCorporate governanceStatisticsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose The purpose of this study is to examine the existence of the glass ceiling in Texas. Design/methodology/approach Data on publicly traded corporations registered in the state of Texas was used to examine the existence of the glass ceiling effect in Texas. The data for this study were gathered from ReferenceUSA, which is a subscription database that contains information on more than 12 million US businesses and one million Canadian businesses. Findings The study found the existence of the glass ceiling based on the analysis of the sample. Of the 257 corporations in the sample, there were only two that had women chief executive officers (0.78 percent). Research limitations/implications The dataset used was not a comprehensive list of corporations registered in Texas. Practical implications Given the increase in ethnic and gender diversity at the work place, it is critical that women feel assured of an equal opportunity to reach top‐management positions. Originality/value Although there have been other studies in the field, none have focused on Texas which is the second largest US state in area (after Alaska) and in population (after California). It is hoped that the results add value to the existing literature.

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 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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.407
Threshold uncertainty score0.978

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.078
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.260 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations36
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCompetitiveness Review An International Business Journal incorporating Journal of Global CompetitivenessSame topicGender Diversity and InequalityFrench-language works237,207