Ranking LGBT inclusion: Diversity ranking systems as institutional archetypes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This article discusses rankings that evaluate diversity and inclusion programs for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) employees. Rankings promote LGBT issues and reward organizations who work towards “best practice” with a high rating. However, rankings only legitimize one set of practices and often fail to give small organizations a clear path towards inclusion. Corporations are warned against checklist‐based diversity where rankings reward superficial rather than substantive change. Within new institutional theory, the concept of “distorted institutional fit” is introduced to explain distortions preventing “optimal institutional fit.” This article recommends a reprioritization of diversity program evaluations to reward only substantive change by evaluating the impact on the lived experiences of employees. Copyright © 2017 ASAC. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 | 0.039 | 0.063 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".