Bibliographic record
Abstract
Organizations within the global workforce have, in recent years, designed and articulated well-defined values on diversity, equity and inclusion to meet current legal and ethical workplace requirements. Scholarly publishing is no exception. Recent appointments of women to key executive leadership positions at Cambridge University Press, Emerald, PLOS, Research Square, Taylor and Francis, and Wiley have gone some way to addressing the gender imbalance in executive roles. Nonetheless the ultimate aspiration – to reshape the workforce to be more reflective of the population, and for leadership to be more reflective of such a workforce – is not yet a reality. <br><br>The Workplace Equity Project (WE), an independent, nonprofit organization, conducted a global survey in 2018 to map the parameters that define the industry landscape, understand the drivers for change and recommend solutions for delivering improved outcomes. <br> <br>The survey report and WE Project blog and resources can now be found on the C4DISC website:<br>https://c4disc.org/workplace-equity-survey/<br>https://c4disc.org/category/voices/<br>https://c4disc.org/category/insights/<br><br><br><br><br>
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 | 0.007 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.017 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".