MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411180176 · doi:10.3138/cjc-2024-0035

Google’s Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Policy and “EDI Solutionism”: An Intersectional Feminist Political Economy Analysis

2025· article· en· W4411180176 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Tanner Mirrlees

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Communication · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDigital Economy and Work Transformation
Canadian institutionsOntario Tech University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEquity (law)Inclusion (mineral)Diversity (politics)PoliticsIntersectionalityPolitical scienceGender studiesSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: This article applies an intersectional feminist political economy approach to examine the contexts and conditions of Google’s equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) policy. Analysis: Google’s EDI policy framework is interpreted as a strategic response to criticisms of the inequities and oppressions surrounding Google’s work and labour conditions, technological products, and social power. Conclusions and implications: There are notable contradictions between Google’s EDI policy ideals and enduring practices. Google’s EDI policy may be an example of “EDI solutionism” in a context where many tech corporations have tried to co-opt identity politics in pursuit of profit.

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 categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.892
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

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 studies0.0040.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.296 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of CommunicationSame topicDigital Economy and Work TransformationFrench-language works237,207