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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.370
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.193
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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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