A field study of the impacts of workplace diversity on the recruitment of minority group members
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Increasing workplace diversity is a common goal. Given research showing that minority applicants anticipate better treatment in diverse workplaces, we ran a field experiment (N = 1,585 applicants, N = 31,928 website visitors) exploring how subtle organizational diversity cues affected applicant behaviour. Potential applicants viewed a company with varying levels of racial/ethnic or gender diversity. There was little evidence that racial/ethnic or gender diversity impacted the demographic composition or quality of the applicant pool. However, fewer applications were submitted to organizations with one form of diversity (that is, racial/ethnic or gender diversity), and more applications were submitted to organizations with only white men employees or employees diverse in race/ethnicity and gender. Finally, exploratory analyses found that female applicants were rated as more qualified than male applicants. Presenting a more diverse workforce does not guarantee more minority applicants, and organizations seeking to recruit minority applicants may need stronger displays of commitments to diversity.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it