MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416775130 · doi:10.25071/2564-2855.48

Gender, linguistics, and leadership

2025· article· W4416775130 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Judy Brooks

Bibliographic record

VenueWorking papers in Applied Linguistics and Linguistics at York · 2025
Typearticle
Language
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender Diversity and Inequality
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCriticismConformityLeadership styleCoachingIdeologyStyle (visual arts)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study focuses on the differences in the linguistic features of male and female coaches when leading men’s and women’s teams. Over the course of four weeks, three coaches were observed while coaching men’s and women’s team practices. Utterances were coded as either encouragement or criticism, and were also given a rating of either enthusiastic, calm, stern, or aggressive. In this paper, I compare the number of encouragement and criticism utterances from the male and female coaches toward each team, as well as compare the number of utterances made toward each team that were either enthusiastic, calm, stern, or aggressive. The results suggest that the coaches’ different linguistic styles are not innate but stem from conformity with language ideologies as a result of the two-cultures theory.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.035
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.977
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.035
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.150
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.143 · 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
GenreOther

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 venueWorking papers in Applied Linguistics and Linguistics at YorkSame topicGender Diversity and InequalityFrench-language works237,207