Promoting Inclusion through Organizational Culture Change
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, I explored the prevalence of systemic barriers to inclusion in public sector organizations and suggested the need for organizations to examine their own cultural practices to identify such barriers, take steps to mitigate the barriers, and bring about cultural change to improve and sustain an inclusive work environment. To this end, I used organizational auto-ethnographic analysis within a narrative analysis framework to examine my professional / personal experiences in the course of my 23-year career with the Ontario Public Service (OPS), supplemented by expert interviews with four senior officers of OPS. I identified seven key systemic barriers to inclusion created by organizational cultural practices in OPS and suggested some measures for mitigating those barriers. Based on this exercise, I designed a tool for public sector organizations, as learning organizations, to reflect on their cultural practices to identify systemic barriers to inclusion and develop plans for becoming more inclusive.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".