Generational Differences in the Workplace: There Is Complexity Beyond the Stereotypes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The topic of generational differences in the workplace has been immensely popular over the past decade, spawning a large number of academic publications and a far greater number of consulting reports, popular press books, magazine articles, media reports, blogs, and infographics. Indeed, a new industry of consultants and public speakers seems to have emerged primarily to capitalize on the popularity of this topic. As Costanza and Finkelstein (2015) note, the research on this “hot topic” has often seemed opportunistic, lacking rigor and depth. The relative ease of cutting existing cross-sectional data by age and calling it a generation study has tempted researchers to hop on the bandwagon, resulting in a large number of empirical studies with nearly identical literature reviews that overrely on popular press and opinion-based literature. There has been a lamentable tendency toward blind empiricism with little or no connection to theory, as has been stated elsewhere (Lyons & Kuron, 2014; Parry & Urwin, 2011).
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".