MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3214889887 · doi:10.1177/17427150211051499

Book Review: Opening Doors to Diversity in Leadership

2021· article· en· W3214889887 on OpenAlexaffabout
Aman Paul

Bibliographic record

VenueLeadership · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender Diversity and Inequality
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDisadvantagedDiversity (politics)RacismIndigenousFace (sociological concept)SociologyTransformational leadershipContext (archaeology)Perspective (graphical)Cultural diversityPublic relationsGender studiesPolitical scienceSocial scienceLawGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Opening Doors to Diversity in Leadership is a hard-hitting look at systemic racism in the workplace. The author provides eye-opening insights into the barriers that those who are marginalized must face when establishing respect and authority in leadership roles. This eight-chapter book examines the plight of four uniquely disadvantaged groups of individuals. These groups include Indigenous populations, women, persons with disabilities, and racialized minorities. These groups were examined with particular interest given the fact that on January 1, 2020, amendments to the Canada Business Corporations Act went into effect and required a greater level of diversity amongst the aforementioned populations (p. 299). Issues within the context of building diversity into the workplace were approached from a triangular perspective, looking at the interplaying dynamics between the psychological, organizational, and cultural/societal dimensions. The author makes it clear that for real and lasting change to take effect, there must be sweeping overhauls within each of the three categories discussed.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.040
Threshold uncertainty score0.134

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0400.019

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 head0.524
GPT teacher head0.357
Teacher spread0.166 · 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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLeadershipSame topicGender Diversity and InequalityFrench-language works237,207