A reflection of the contributions of “Women in sport management: advancing the representation through HRM structures”
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to offer a reflection of contributions made by the paper “Women in sport management: advancing the representation through HRM structures.” Design/methodology/approach The approach the paper took in preparing this reflection was to offer the recollections as why the study was initiated and the significance it has had since being in print. Findings In this paper, four key outcomes of the original study are identified and discussed. They are that women rated their leaders as significantly less committed to gender equity than men did; that experiencing a gender equity lawsuit increased top management's philosophical support of gender equity, that top management support for gender equity is significantly positively associated with both substantive human resource management (HRM) practices and the percentage of female managers in the organization; and that the presence of substantive HRM practices for gender equity is unrelated to the employment of female sport managers. Originality/value The paper offers insight on the significance of the original paper and communicates the importance of further practical and scholarly efforts to increase gender equity within management.
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 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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".