Looking into Corporate Boardrooms Through the Lens of Gender Diversity: A Bibliometric Review and META Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present study examines the literature on the corporate boardroom through the lens of gender diversity.The study identified 1413 studies from Scopus database to identify the corporate board gender diversity ranging from a period of 1998 to 2021 (November).The identified studies are reviewed by using VOS viewer software and R-Studio.The study also employed META analysis to further analyse the data and draw meaningful results.The study identifies the current themes in the literature of corporate boardroom diversity, find impediments to the growth in literature, find the most relevant paper over the years, most prolific authors, and most influential journal.The study also suggests the further scope of the study.We conclude by providing the five potential emerging research directions.The study identifies and discusses the main areas and current development in the field of corporate board diversity in terms of gender and suggests future research directions.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.028 | 0.089 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.101 | 0.082 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".