MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2790460670 · doi:10.1111/bjir.12304

The Earnings Effect of Sexual Orientation: British Evidence from Worker‐Firm Matched Data

2018· article· en· W2790460670 on OpenAlexaff
Jing Wang, Morley Gunderson, David Wicks

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Industrial Relations · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender Diversity and Inequality
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSexual orientationEarningsEquity (law)Diversity (politics)Demographic economicsPsychologyLabour economicsIndustrial relationsBusinessSocial psychologyEconomicsSociologyPolitical scienceManagementAccounting

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Using the British Workplace Employment Relations Study (WERS) with its preferred self‐identified measure of sexual orientation as well as its organizational‐level variables, we find that gay men earn about the same as heterosexual men and lesbians earn significantly more than heterosexual women. Working in an organization with a diversity and equity management (DEM) policy generally has a positive effect on the earnings of gay men and lesbians, especially if they are single. Implications for theories of diversity management, discrimination and market versus household production are discussed.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.165
Threshold uncertainty score0.329

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.193
GPT teacher head0.351
Teacher spread0.158 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations16
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of Industrial RelationsSame topicGender Diversity and InequalityFrench-language works237,207