MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W34918129 · doi:10.1093/mr/roab068

Visible Minority Work Experiences in Canadian IT/ICT Sectors

2009· article· en· W34918129 on OpenAlexaffabout
Wendy Cukier, Margaret Yap, Mark Robert Holmes, Charity‐Ann Hannan

Bibliographic record

VenueAmericas Conference on Information Systems · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender Diversity and Inequality
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInformation and Communications TechnologyWorkforceEconomic shortageGovernment (linguistics)BusinessGovernment sectorPerceptionWork (physics)Diversity (politics)Public relationsBusiness sectorEconomic growthPolitical scienceEngineeringPrivate sectorPsychologyEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Corporate leaders have joined industry associations and government in maintaining that supporting diversity is an important part of the solution to the skills shortage in the Information and Communications Technology Sector (ICT). Considerable research and discussion has focused on the plight of minority groups in Canada and the gap between their potential and their experience in the workforce generally, and in the ICT sector. Less attention has been focused on the gaps between visible minority groups and gender. Our study makes an important contribution by examining workplace perceptions of more than 6783 managers with a minimum of 10 years experience in nine large Canadian companies in the ICT Sector. The principal conclusions of the paper are that there is a significant gap between the workplace perceptions of visible minorities and white/Caucasians, and to a lesser degree, men and women employees in the ICT sector.

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)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.041
Threshold uncertainty score0.161

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0120.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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 head0.107
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.208 · 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 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

Citations2
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmericas Conference on Information SystemsSame topicGender Diversity and InequalityFrench-language works237,207