MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4247412860 · doi:10.1108/09670731211249387

Sodexo seeks to get more women into 300 top jobs

2012· article· en· W4247412860 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueHuman Resource Management International Digest · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicScience, Research, and Medicine
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOriginalityTeamworkQuarter (Canadian coin)Work (physics)Value (mathematics)Senior managementPublic relationsMarketingBusinessManagementSociologyPolitical scienceEconomicsEngineeringComputer scienceQualitative research

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose This paper aims to describe how international food and facilities‐management firm Sodexo is trying to increase the number of women in its top jobs, and why the company particularly welcomes job applications from former members of the military. Design/methodology/approach The paper explains the background to these policies and the successes they have achieved. Findings The paper highlights the company's ambition to ensure that a quarter of its 300 top jobs are filled by women by 2015. It details the work of the Sodexo Women's International Forum for Talent (Swift), which includes 20 of the company's senior female executives, representing 12 nationalities, who propose specific actions needed to help women to achieve top‐management jobs. Practical implications The paper explains that the company believes that a military background translates into successful jobs for veterans with Sodexo because they: recognize the importance of teamwork and employ it every day; are accustomed to advancement through their own achievements; and thrive on new assignments and the challenges of new locations. Social implications The paper highlights the benefits of making best use of the talents of women and veterans. Originality/value The paper describes award‐winning initiatives designed to get more women into top jobs and to employ the talents of guardsmen and veterans.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.418
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.318 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHuman Resource Management International DigestSame topicScience, Research, and MedicineFrench-language works237,207