MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2902859119

Impact of Workplace Diversity on The Performance of The Organizations

2018· article· en· W2902859119 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Harpreet Kaur Rakhra

Bibliographic record

VenueZENITH International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender Diversity and Inequality
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDiversity (politics)ProductivityWorkforceCultural diversityPublic relationsWorkforce diversityPersonalityGender diversityWork (physics)Demographic economicsBusinessPsychologyMarketingSocial psychologyPolitical scienceManagementEngineeringEconomic growthEconomicsLaw
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The paper attempts to throw some light on the challenges that arise at a workplace due to diverse workforce and how they can be coped with. Diversity refers to the differences among people in a organization in terms of gender, age, personality, education, geographic region, lifestyle origin among others. Managing diversity ensures that there is no effect of this diversity on the productivity of the employee. This paper investigates the reasons for this diversity how it affects the productivity of the employee and the measures through which it can be curbed so that the productivity is not hampered and the employees are able to work in a safe and supportive environment. The diversity whether it is in form of gender, culture, education background or any other influence the life of the employees which in turn greatly affects how he works and behaves at his workplace. It is a well established fact that diversity does cause a problem in the organizations. Many organizations in developed countries like U.S and Canada have large chunk of employees who belong to different other nationalities or cultural background. This fact pushes the need to study this concept even more as productivity remains an important issue in the companies.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.957

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.197
GPT teacher head0.439
Teacher spread0.242 · 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.

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

Citations2
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueZENITH International Journal of Multidisciplinary ResearchSame topicGender Diversity and InequalityFrench-language works237,207