MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

[Under]Representation of Women in Leadership: Where Does the Onus Lie?

2018· article· en· W2844739206 on OpenAlexaff
Radhika Chugh, Víctor Sojo

Bibliographic record

VenueAcademy of Management Proceedings · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender Diversity and Inequality
Canadian institutionsWorkplace Health, Safety and Compensation Commission
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContext (archaeology)Supply sidePublic relationsSupply and demandState (computer science)Demand sideSociologyPolitical scienceBusinessEconomicsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The underrepresentation of women in senior leadership roles continues to generate interest among lay people, policy makers, and academics. At least two distinct lines of research have emerged trying to understand this phenomenon, some academics have dedicated their efforts to understand factors on the supply side, investigating mechanisms used to upskill women and get them ready for leadership roles (e.g., training, mentoring, networking). Almost in parallel, other academics have been interested on the demand side, that is, strategies that aim at increasing the demand for qualified women (e.g., reporting requirements, targets and quotas for women in leadership). In the current symposium, we try to integrate these two lines of research by presenting four studies that are focused on supply-side strategies, demand-side strategies, and both. With a stronger focus on the supply side, we will have two papers within the university context, where the inequalities in access to quality education, networks, and mentors is likely to originate. On the demand side, the papers in this symposium will analyse the effectiveness of hiring and employment practices in the context of boards of directors of US top firms. The symposium will finish with a facilitated discussion about the limitations in the theorising within the supply-side and the demand-side research, potential integrative frameworks, and the policies and practices that would be reasonable to implement based on the research findings. Is It All About Who You Know? Presenter: Alicia R. Ingersoll; Utah State U. Presenter: Alison Cook; Utah State U. Presenter: Christy Glass; utah state A Matter of Choice? Gender Differences in Professors Participation in Academic Deanship Presenter: Levke Henningsen; U. of Zurich Presenter: Alice H Eagly; Northwestern U. Presenter: Klaus Jonas; U. of Zurich Criteria Versus Process: Selection Practices and Female Representation on Boards of Directors Presenter: Gosia Mikolajczak; La Trobe U. Presenter: Robert E. Wood; U. of Melbourne Presenter: Melissa Wheeler; Faculty of Business and Economics, U. of Melbourne Presenter: Victor Sojo Monzon; Centre for Workplace Leadership, The U. of Melbourne Gender Diversity in Corporate Board Committees Presenter: Arjun Mitra; U. of Illinois at Chicago Presenter: Steve Sauerwald; U. of Illinois at Chicago

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.025
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score0.066

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.025
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0080.012
Scholarly communication0.0110.011
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0050.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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 head0.152
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.180 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAcademy of Management Proceedings→Same topicGender Diversity and Inequality→French-language works237,207→