MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2162833321 · doi:10.5465/amp.2012.0005

Much Ado About Nothing? Observers' Problematization of Women's Same-Sex Conflict at Work

2012· article· en· W2162833321 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAcademy of Management Perspectives · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender Diversity and Inequality
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProblematizationSet (abstract data type)PerceptionWork (physics)Work–family conflictNothingSocial psychologyRole conflictPsychologySociologyEpistemologyComputer scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We propose that individuals are inclined to believe that women have difficulty working with one another. Management researchers have reinforced this assumption by propagating concepts such as the queen bee syndrome and by neglecting to provide balanced perspectives with accounts of conflict among men at work. We suggest that observers are inclined to problematize conflict among women at work relative to conflict among men, and that this tendency might be partly responsible for perceptions that women have difficulty working with one another. We provide empirical evidence to support this notion. We first review the literature on conflict between women at work and address its shortcomings to set the stage for our study.

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 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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.303
Threshold uncertainty score0.775

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.089
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.228 · 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