Benefiting from Diversity: How Groups’ Coordinating Mechanisms Affect Leadership Opportunities for Marginalized Individuals
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
Abstract Research suggests that prototypical group members often exert stronger social influence and thus have greater leadership opportunities relative to members of marginalized or underrepresented social categories. This article offers a new model for understanding and promoting leadership diversity by focusing on the mechanisms by which a group or organization coordinates behavior among its members. We predict that means‐focused groups (in which social norms drive coordination) are likely to suppress influence among non‐prototypic members, whereas ends‐focused groups (in which shared goals drive coordination) are more likely to allow for leadership from a diverse set of members. The primary mechanism by which a group coordinates its members—social norms versus shared goals—is thus expected to serve as a critical moderator affecting the likelihood that group‐level diversity will translate into inclusion, innovation, performance, and prosperity. Implications of the model for policy and practice, particularly in organizational settings, 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.
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 | 0.003 | 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 | 0.003 | 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