MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2754533117

DIVERSITY HOTSPOTS AND SOCIAL INTEGRATION: AN OVERVIEW

2017· article· en· W2754533117 on OpenAlexaff
Clement Wells, Johnson McDone

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Applied Science and Technology - Canadian Journal of Applied Science and Technology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender Diversity and Inequality
Canadian institutionsSt. Mary's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSuperordinate goalsDiversity (politics)AutonomyOpenness to experienceTask (project management)Public relationsBusinessIdentity (music)MarketingPopulationKnowledge managementPolitical scienceSociologyManagementPsychologySocial psychologyEconomicsComputer science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As the marketplace for goods and services becomes increasingly global, businesses must understand and embrace diversity in their brands as well as in their work forces. Simply having a diverse employee population is no longer enough, according to Forbes; for a company to succeed in today's challenging economy, it must not only meet the needs of a multifaceted marketplace, it must respect different cultures, ideas and philosophies. From the experiences of Apple it is possible to argue that while an organisation may not be able to completely deal with the challenge of diversity faultlines, it can mitigate the effect of it with the appropriate response strategies. Six of them have been highlighted and these are task autonomy, establishing superordinate (shared) team identity, intergroup teams, intra-team communication leadership style, decision making norms, openness to change.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0110.010
Science and technology studies0.0030.005
Scholarly communication0.0060.008
Open science0.0010.007
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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 head0.078
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.212 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Applied Science and Technology - Canadian Journal of Applied Science and Technology→Same topicGender Diversity and Inequality→French-language works237,207→