An Overview of Glass Ceiling, Tiara, Imposter, and Queen Bee Barrier Syndromes on Women in the Upper Echelons
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The increasing women participation in the upper management level has been a comprehensive research study for women and career studies. Although only a few of them have had successfully broken the glass ceiling, they still have to struggle to keep up with the opposite gender. The purpose of the research study is to review past research studies on the glass ceiling syndrome, tiara syndrome, imposter syndrome, and queen bee barrier syndromes that commonly occur in women’s career progression and understand how it affects women’s career success. This paper reports the results of a literature review on four barrier syndromes in 45 combinations of research paper, books, magazine, thesis and discussion paper. Women need to have skills and ability in order to be leaders of upper management. The result of the study could provide a better understanding of the barriers that effects the women leaders in becoming successful. Thus, this research is conducted to gather and review the literature on the barrier syndromes and how it affects women’s success in their careers.
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 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 | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".