MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2969204052 · doi:10.33423/jbd.v19i2.2057

How to Manage Gender Bias from Within: Women in Leadership

2019· article· en· W2969204052 on OpenAlexaffabout
Sharon Roberts, Donna K. Brown

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Business Diversity · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender Diversity and Inequality
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPrejudice (legal term)Gender biasPsychologyContext (archaeology)Identity (music)Social psychologyGender identityJournaling file systemSocial identity theorySocial group

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this article, new knowledge related to managing gender bias provides a context to discuss women in leadership. This study explored how women on corporate boards coped with gender bias. Social identity theory and the role congruity theory of prejudice provided a conceptual lens of the study. Through semistructured interviews with six women on corporate boards from Canada, reflective journaling, and analysis of physical artifacts related to women revealed seven emergent themes using Yin’s five phases of analysis. The findings of this study can be used by women to be more effective in managing gender bias in their leadership roles.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.486

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.345
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.069 · 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

Citations9
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Business DiversitySame topicGender Diversity and InequalityFrench-language works237,207