MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2114309719 · doi:10.1177/0020852305059601

Determinants of objective and subjective success of men and women

2005· article· en· W2114309719 on OpenAlexaffabout
Monique Lortie‐Lussier, Natalie Rinfret

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Review of Administrative Sciences · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender Diversity and Inequality
Canadian institutionsÉcole Nationale d'Administration Publique
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSalaryPsychologyPerspective (graphical)Job satisfactionInterpersonal communicationInterpersonal relationshipSet (abstract data type)Multilevel modelSocial psychologyPublic serviceHuman capitalPublic relationsPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objective of the study reported here was to determine whether a set of individual variables predicted both the objective and subjective career success of 156 women and 218 men managers in the Quebec public service. Hierarchical regressions performed separately for each gender revealed that few variables predicted both dimensions of success. Human capital was found to be the most important predictor of objective success, salary and position level, regardless of gender. Men’s advancement to senior management positions was facilitated by age, family situation and mentoring, while that of women was facilitated by selfrated interpersonal skills. Age and self-rated interpersonal skills were the only predictors of subjective success, career satisfaction and job satisfaction, for both genders. Ambition negatively predicted career satisfaction for both genders. Findings are discussed from the perspective of current notions of career success in organizations.

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)0.002
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 score0.094
Threshold uncertainty score0.635

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.117
GPT teacher head0.424
Teacher spread0.308 · 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

Citations34
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Review of Administrative SciencesSame topicGender Diversity and InequalityFrench-language works237,207