MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4417066149 · doi:10.1111/puar.70058

Rhetoric Versus Reality? A Comparative Study of Public and Non‐Public Sector Employees' Perceptions of Discrimination

2025· article· en· W4417066149 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.

Bibliographic record

VenuePublic Administration Review · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender Diversity and Inequality
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPerceptionRhetoricExploratory researchPublic sectorEmpirical researchEquity (law)Set (abstract data type)Human resource managementEmpirical evidence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT How people are treated in the workplace is of increasing concern, with many scholars arguing that the government, as an employer, should set the standard for equitable treatment. While attention to equity in public administration has grown in research and practice, minimal work has comparatively explored discrimination in the public and non‐public sectors. Drawing on data from the 2018 European Social Survey, this study explores possible differences in how public and non‐public employees perceive discrimination and how perceptions vary across countries. In most countries, the differences between the sectors were not significant, but the findings show that the country, administrative culture, and sociodemographic variables play a role in perceptions of discrimination. This exploratory study makes an important empirical contribution by accumulating evidence of perceptions of discrimination across countries and has practical implications for human resource management practitioners.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.789
Threshold uncertainty score0.509

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.328
GPT teacher head0.433
Teacher spread0.105 · 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