The Effects of Rater Sex and Ratee Sex on Managerial Performance Evaluation
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Thirty-three men and twenty-four women evaluated and rated the performance of two managers (a man and a woman) after the managers had made decisions based on information provided by the management accounting system. The experimental materials comprised two cases—one showing successful performance and the other, unsuccessful performance. It is hypothesised that both men and women raters will demonstrate a bias against the successful woman manager, that is, evaluate her more harshly compared with the successful male manager. No difference in performance evaluation is predicted between the unsuccessful female manager and the unsuccessful male manager. The results support the hypotheses. A second dependent variable measured the perceived benefit that was received from expenditure incurred in carrying out the managers' decisions. It is hypothesised that both men and women raters will demonstrate a bias against the successful woman manager, that is, perceive lower benefit from a woman-initiated decision relative to a man-initiated decision. No evidence of biases against the successful woman manager is observed. The paper concludes with a discussion of the implications of these findings.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it