MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2980921314 · doi:10.1163/17087384-12340036

Board Diversity in Terms of Gender: a Recommendation for Mauritius

2018· article· en· W2980921314 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ambareen Beebeejaun

Bibliographic record

VenueAfrican Journal of Legal Studies · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender Diversity and Inequality
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGender diversityDiversity (politics)LegislatureLaggingRepresentation (politics)AccountingCorporate governanceGender mainstreamingBusinessPublic relationsGender equalityPolitical scienceSociologyLawGender studiesFinanceMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The increased presence of women on the boards of corporations is an international trend worth following by all countries. There are many good reasons for increasing gender diversity on boards have been evidenced by various studies such as better decisions, performance, and representation of the consumer base. However, the country of Mauritius has been lagging behind in terms of legislative initiatives to promote female representation on corporate boards. A study conducted by the Hay Group in association with the Mauritius Institute of Directors in 2015 supports this fact. The study seeks to identify the relative benefits behind the global trend of achieving gender diversity on corporate boards and on the factors that impact the representation of women on such boards. Some various kinds of regimes and initiatives that have been developed in some countries mainly Norway and the UK will be analysed to deal with the issue of underrepresentation of women on corporate boards. The purpose behind this research is to provide effective recommendations for Mauritius to achieve a greater level of gender diversity on corporate boards. The methodologies for the research are, in essence, comprised of the black letter approach which analyses the legal provisions relating to directors in Mauritius, Norway, and the UK. Journals, books, and reports amongst others will be also examined. The paper aims at responding to the research objectives set out above. In particular, a soft-law approach in terms of voluntary target and non-financial disclosure in terms of gender diversity status is suggested as a first step to resolve low representation of women on corporate boards in Mauritius.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.314
Threshold uncertainty score0.350

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.274
GPT teacher head0.378
Teacher spread0.103 · 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 designQualitative
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 venueAfrican Journal of Legal StudiesSame topicGender Diversity and InequalityFrench-language works237,207