MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2803746612 · doi:10.1027/1864-9335/a000343

Should I Stay or Should I Go?

2018· article· en· W2803746612 on OpenAlexaff
Katharina Block, William M. Hall, Toni Schmader, Michelle Inness, Elizabeth A. Croft

Bibliographic record

VenueSocial Psychology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCareer Development and Diversity
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of TorontoUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologySocial psychologyPersonalityValue (mathematics)Big Five personality traitsSample (material)Developmental psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. Gender stereotypes that associate science and technology to men more than women create subtle barriers to women’s advancement in these fields. But how do stereotypic associations, when internalized by women, relate to their own sense of fit and organizational commitment? Our research is the first to demonstrate that, among working engineers, women’s own gender stereotypic implicit associations predict lower organizational commitment. In a sample of 263 engineers (145 women), women (but not men) who implicitly associated engineering with men more than women were less committed to their organization. This relationship was mediated by lower self-efficacy and value fit, and not explained by other personality, demographic, or organizational factors. We discuss how internalized cultural biases can constrain women’s experiences in STEM.

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)0.005
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.002

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 head0.248
GPT teacher head0.458
Teacher spread0.210 · 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

Citations23
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSocial PsychologySame topicCareer Development and DiversityFrench-language works237,207