MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3123639751 · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-48606-8_13

Governance of Gender Diversity Case

2021· book-chapter· en· W3123639751 on OpenAlexaff
Beatrix Dart

Bibliographic record

VenueManagement for professionals · 2021
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender Diversity and Inequality
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCorporate governanceDiversity (politics)Gender diversityOn boardPolitical sciencePublic relationsBusinessAccountingPsychologyEngineeringLawFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Gender diversity on boards has become accepted as an important step to increase governance, risk assessment, and innovative thinking for companies. However, the arguments of finding merit-based candidates, a narrow definition of the board skills matrix, and the desire to add “who you know” have proven to be lasting obstacles for many female board candidates. This short case highlights the importance of making a conscious effort to expanding board searches past the usual networks to lead to boards with better decision-making abilities by adding female board directors.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.055

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.005
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.001

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 head0.188
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.152 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations1
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueManagement for professionalsSame topicGender Diversity and InequalityFrench-language works237,207