MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2315971914 · doi:10.1177/1523422314543820

Feminist Theory and Queer Theory

2014· article· en· W2315971914 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

VenueAdvances in Developing Human Resources · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender Diversity and Inequality
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScholarshipConversationSociologySexual orientationGender studiesQueerDiversity (politics)WorkforceQueer theoryIdentity (music)Public relationsInterrogationEngineering ethicsPolitical scienceAestheticsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Problem Although the workforce has become increasingly diverse, there has not been a corresponding interrogation of the assumptions about the ways that demographics, particularly gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression, relate to Human Resource Development (HRD) imperatives. The Solution This article will provide justification for why feminist theory and queer theory should be drawn into conversation with each other as useful frameworks for HRD research and scholarship. These frameworks are concerned with “othering” practices and the marginalization that can occur in workplaces, and they can assist HRD scholars and practitioners to expand their knowledge about diversity and inform research and scholarship. The Stakeholders Stakeholders invested in this topic include HRD practitioners and scholars, marginalized people, and, more specifically, women and sexual minorities.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.582
Threshold uncertainty score0.659

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.280 · 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