MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2982353178 · doi:10.1177/0170840619875480

Not just good for her: A temporal analysis of the dynamic relationship between representation of women and collective employee turnover

2019· article· en· W2982353178 on OpenAlexaff
Cara C. Maurer, Israr Qureshi

Bibliographic record

VenueOrganization Studies · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender Diversity and Inequality
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRepresentation (politics)WorkforceSpillover effectTurnoverDemographic economicsPsychologyPopulationSocial psychologySociologyPolitical scienceEconomicsDemographyManagementMicroeconomicsEconomic growth

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many organizations aim to increase the representation of women in their workforce, yet such efforts are often challenged by women’s relatively higher propensity to leave a job compared to men. Overlooked so far has been the temporal relationship between the representation of women and an organization’s collective employee turnover. We suggest that a substantive and rapid increase in the representation of women positively affects women and results in positive spillover effects for men, leading to a decrease in collective turnover. In our theoretical development, we explain how higher representation of women is associated with higher job embeddedness for all employees, which results in a subsequent decrease in collective employee turnover. We use latent curve model (LCM) analysis to examine a population of 499 organizations over a 14-year time span, and find support for our hypotheses. We suggest opportunities for future research and offer implications for practicing managers.

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)0.000
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 score0.043
Threshold uncertainty score0.236

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
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 head0.136
GPT teacher head0.356
Teacher spread0.221 · 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

Citations42
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOrganization StudiesSame topicGender Diversity and InequalityFrench-language works237,207