MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4412932030 · doi:10.3390/jrfm18080423

Looking Through the Corporate Glass Ceiling in China

2025· article· en· W4412932030 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Runping Zhu, Zhiwei Huo, Richard Krever

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of risk and financial management · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender Diversity and Inequality
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersHong Kong Baptist University
KeywordsGlass ceilingChinaBusinessMaterials sciencePolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An important element in the Constitution of the People’s Republic of China is the guarantee of gender equality in all fields. The principle is not reflected in terms of corporate governance and senior management, however. A study of the largest 400 companies listed on Chinese stock exchanges shows far fewer female board members and senior managers than male counterparts and only a small improvement over the course of a decade. A comparison of gender balances in terms of a range of variables, including stock exchange listing, industry type, and ownership type, reveals better balances in wholly privately owned firms than in those with controlling state interests. Subject to intervening government policies to promote state-owned enterprises over private sector counterparts, the pattern over the decade studied suggests there is a possibility privately owned enterprises may gradually displace state-owned companies in the largest 400 group and gender balances in senior roles in the largest 400 group will consequently improve.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.295
Threshold uncertainty score0.000

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.232 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of risk and financial management→Same topicGender Diversity and Inequality→French-language works237,207→