MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2164900229 · doi:10.1177/0007650312459918

The Global Compact and Gender Inequality

2012· article· en· W2164900229 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

VenueBusiness & Society · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInternational Development and Aid
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Saint-Boniface
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGender inequalityInequalityPovertyGender equalitySociologyPoverty reductionSocial inequalityElement (criminal law)Learning networkWork (physics)Business casePolitical scienceEconomic growthPublic relationsEconomicsGender studiesManagement

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A number of international organizations have identified eliminating gender inequality as a critical element in poverty reduction and development. Given that the Global Compact (GC) was launched, in part, to work toward the achievement of these goals, this article argues that the GC should pay significant attention to gender inequality in its learning network. The article discusses the findings of a review of the GC learning network, which reveals that the issue of gender inequality was missing from its agenda in its first decade. The author suggests explanations for this finding, including the lack of participation by women’s organizations in the GC learning network, the lack of a gender discourse in corporate social responsibility initiatives generally, and the GC’s focus on the business case, which may deflect attention from gender inequality where no clear business case can be made.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.349
Threshold uncertainty score0.561

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.071
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.287 · 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