MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4394921492 · doi:10.1002/hrm.22223

Covert allyship: Implementing <scp>LGBT</scp> policies in an adversarial context

2024· article· en· W4394921492 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueHuman Resource Management · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and Policy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaUniversity of New South WalesLeverhulme Trust
KeywordsCovertContext (archaeology)Adversarial systemBusinessPublic relationsComputer securityComputer sciencePolitical scienceLawHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This study introduces the concept of covert allyship as a strategy for tacitly supporting lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) inclusion in adversarial contexts. Drawing on a qualitative case study of 12 Western multinational enterprises (MNEs) operating in Indonesia, the largest Muslim country in the world, the article sheds light on how allyship for LGBT issues is undertaken covertly as allies seek to transcend tensions arising between headquarters publicly advocating for LGBT rights and their subsidiaries. The findings evaluate both barriers to MNE subsidiaries implementing LGBT‐supportive policies and facilitating mechanisms for covert forms of institutional allyship. Finally, the article provides recommendations for how MNEs can adopt practices that build subtle yet effective LGBT‐supportive approaches in contexts that require sensitivity to local cultures and legislation.

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 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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.510
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.384
Teacher spread0.337 · 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