Diversity and inclusion for LGBT workers: Current issues and new horizons for research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The organization literature on lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) workplace issues is well over three decades old, a milestone that warrants celebration and reflection given that the study of LGBT sexualities and genders has not garnered enormous attention from organization researchers. Indeed, this special issue is timely in that respect, and particularly in the context of this journal. While the Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences has published on LGBT issues such as in the arena of gay and lesbian sports (Washington & McKay, 2011), the journal has yet to publish research that explores LGBT issues in different avenues of everyday life including the workplace. As is typical of the organization scholarly literature more broadly, gender has received greater attention in the journal, evidenced in vibrant and important scholarly research on organization masculinity (Mills & Mills, 2006), gender and diversity management (Kirton & Greene, 2010; Loukil & Yousif, 2016), and sexual harassment (Hart, 2012). From a wider perspective, feminist organization studies literature indicates that gender, in comparison to sexuality, has typically attracted more scholarly interest. Even within the organization and sexuality literature, which shattered the container metaphor of organization by showing how sexuality and organization are mutually constitutive of one another (Hearn & Parkin, 1995), LGBT scholarship comprises a relatively small part of this corpus of research. Still, extant literature on LGBT workplace issues is empirically and theoretically rich, and has kept abreast of wider economic and sociocultural shifts that have (re)shaped sexual and gender politics in specific cultural contexts (Colgan & Rumens, 2015). As such, it is apposite that this special issue lays the foundations within the journal for future research on LGBT workplace issues.
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 | 0.059 | 0.053 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.059 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.032 | 0.034 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.024 |
| Research integrity | 0.014 | 0.016 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.001 |
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".