The Development, Assessment, and Validation of an Inclusive Procedure and Process Scale
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study presents the development, assessment, and validation of the Inclusive Procedure and Process Scale, designed to provide a mechanism to advance inclusivity within organizational environments. Drawing on Shore et al.’s (2018) model of inclusive organizations, the scale is developed to capture dimensions of inclusivity, including psychological safety, authenticity, feeling valued and respected, involvement in the group and influence on decision-making. The research integrates data from higher education and a retailer to validate the scale. The findings suggest a three-factor model that integrates key dimensions and provides a robust tool for measuring inclusive climates through the procedures and processes that exist within the organization. This scale is further refined in collaboration with a retailer, ensuring adaptability and generalizability in a working environment. Practical implications highlight the scale’s utility in benchmarking inclusivity, informing inclusion strategies, and promoting evidence-based decision-making within the procedures and processes of the organization. Theoretical contributions include advancing the conceptual understanding of inclusive environments and offering a validated tool to assess the impact of inclusive practices on organizational performance and employee retention. Future directions suggest exploring the scale’s application in more diverse organizational contexts and its potential in longitudinal studies to monitor and enhance inclusive climates over time.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".