Stigma Identity Concealment in Hybrid Organizational Cultures
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous stigma identity management theory has considered organizational cultural pressures as unitary in either supporting or discouraging open identity expression, leading individuals to either disclose or conceal their identities, respectively. However, within many organizations are cultures with opposing demands for how individuals should express their stigmatized identities. We integrate theory on stigma identity management and institutional logics to develop expectations about how individuals with stigmatized identities manage their identities in organizational cultures with opposing demands for identity expression, namely, organizational cultures that are informed by both supportive and unsupportive logics. We consider how configurations of supportiveness–unsupportiveness, along dimensions of logic centrality and logic compatibility, affect stigma holders’ identity management choices and their well‐being and job performance. We argue that the consequences of affirming (e.g., disclosure) and distancing (e.g., concealing) identity management strategies vary depending on whether stigma holders comply with or resist against these hybrid configurations.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it