MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4225426160 · doi:10.1108/gm-10-2021-0303

Challenges of female executives' work activities: the hyper-efficiency operating mode

2022· article· en· W4225426160 on OpenAlexaffabout
Émilie Giguère, Karine Bilodeau, Louise St-Arnaud

Bibliographic record

VenueGender in Management An International Journal · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender Diversity and Inequality
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOriginalityDelegateWork (physics)MaterialismMode (computer interface)Female entrepreneursValue (mathematics)Perspective (graphical)Work–life balancePublic relationsQualitative researchSociologyMarketingManagementBusinessEntrepreneurshipEngineeringPolitical scienceEconomicsComputer scienceSocial scienceMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose This paper aims to examine the work experiences of female executives and the challenges of their visible and invisible work activities, considering the operating modes they develop to carry out their work activities. Design/methodology/approach This study relies on a materialist feminist perspective and a critical experientialist work theory, which considers both the visible and invisible dimensions of the work performed by female executives. The methodology is based on a qualitative research design involving individual and group interviews with 51 Canadian female executives. Findings The results reveal the hyper-efficiency operating mode mobilized by female executives, which combines strategies to take over and delegate work activities from the domestic sphere to reconcile the managerial work with their different life spheres. Originality/value A key finding emerging from these results relates to the invisible but omnipresent part of the work activities from the domestic sphere throughout the lives of female executives.

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)0.002
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: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.417
Threshold uncertainty score0.710

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.187
GPT teacher head0.360
Teacher spread0.173 · 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

Citations5
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGender in Management An International JournalSame topicGender Diversity and InequalityFrench-language works237,207