MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4383621594 · doi:10.5430/bmr.v12n2p21

Diversity, Bias & Integrity: Leadership Implications

2023· article· en· W4383621594 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Cam Caldwell, Harry Hobbs, Cam Caldwell, Ian Williamson

Bibliographic record

VenueBusiness and Management Research · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender Diversity and Inequality
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCredibilityDiversity (politics)Action (physics)Public relationsSocial psychologyPsychologyPolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this paper is to identify the nature of diversity, bias, and integrity as concepts that today’s leaders must address and to explain how those three concepts interrelate in affecting a leader’s credibility. After defining each of these key terms, we identify ten common responses of managers and leaders about diversity and bias that undermine their ability to be deemed men or women of integrity. We suggest six action steps for leaders and organizations to adopt to demonstrate their commitment to unbiased treatment of employees and conclude the paper with a challenge to those who lead to reflect on their own interactions as they strive to be perceived as fair and just.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.633
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.853
GPT teacher head0.478
Teacher spread0.375 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBusiness and Management ResearchSame topicGender Diversity and InequalityFrench-language works237,207