MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2186079131 · doi:10.19030/jabr.v27i6.6467

Mentoring, Career Plateau Tendencies, Turnover Intentions And Implications For Narrowing Pay And Position Gaps Due To Gender Structural Equations Modeling

2011· article· en· W2186079131 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Benjamin P. Foster, Subhash C. Lonial, Trimbak Shastri

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Business Research (JABR) · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMentoring and Academic Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGlass ceilingStructural equation modelingCompensation (psychology)Position (finance)PsychologyTurnover intentionPerceptionTurnoverDemographic economicsSample (material)CertificationAccountingBusinessCareer developmentPublic relationsSocial psychologyPolitical scienceManagementJob satisfactionEconomicsEconomic growth

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study analyzed responses to career-related questions from a survey of experienced Canadian Certified Management Accountants (CMAs), relative experts in the field of management accounting, to address how mentoring affects turnover intentions and career plateau tendency of male and female accounting professionals in industry. In this regard, we used structural equations modeling to build and test a framework illustrating the impact of mentoring and career-related factors. Results indicate that fostering a mentoring environment within an organization can strengthen CMAs perceptions of their careers and employers. Mentoring has also been suggested to enhance womens opportunities to advance in organizations and help women break the glass ceiling. Analyses of data relating to compensation in 2007 and 2009 for a sample of female and male CEOs and operating performance of companies led by these CEOs for these years indicate that, that compensation gaps due to gender appear to be narrowing at the top management level.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.051
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.043
Threshold uncertainty score0.085

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.051
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.206
GPT teacher head0.396
Teacher spread0.190 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations20
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied Business Research (JABR)Same topicMentoring and Academic DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207