MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2937851781 · doi:10.1177/0899764019839778

Ethno-racial Diversity on Nonprofit Boards: A Critical Mass Perspective

2019· article· en· W2937851781 on OpenAlexaff
Christopher Fredette, Ruth Sessler Bernstein

Bibliographic record

VenueNonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender Diversity and Inequality
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
FundersUniversity of Washington
KeywordsDiversity (politics)Critical mass (sociodynamics)FiduciaryCorporate governanceStakeholderPerspective (graphical)Public relationsBusinessPolitical scienceSociologyLawSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The need for greater diversity among organizational leaders and directors remains a challenge for organizations within the third sector, and beyond. This study examines diversity through a critical mass lens; that is, we examine an alternative approach to understanding the relationship between the ethno-racial composition of boards of directors and their perceived ability to engage stakeholders, improve organizational responsiveness, and effectively manage fiduciary responsibilities. Our study, drawing on a survey of 247 boards, clarifies the need for a critical mass approach to leadership diversity by highlighting the uneven impact of diversity on performance demonstrated by periods of accelerating and decelerating effect. We find that boards achieving a critical mass of ethno-racial diversity improved board performance among three governance activities—fiduciary performance, stakeholder engagement, and organizational responsiveness—with our critical mass approach illustrating the uneven impact of diversity on performance for each governance activity.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.125
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.250 · 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.

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

Citations53
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNonprofit and Voluntary Sector QuarterlySame topicGender Diversity and InequalityFrench-language works237,207