MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6983280336

Managing Workforce Diversity in Canada: An Empirical Study of the Factors Affecting the Adoption and Success of Diversity Strategies in Canadian Organisations

2019· dissertation· en· W6983280336 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueBradford Scholars (University of Bradford) · 2019
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicIon Channels and Receptors
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBenchmarkingEquity (law)Diversity (politics)Context (archaeology)WorkforceEmpirical researchLegislationStructural equation modelingProspectus
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Equality, diversity and inclusion (EDI) in the workplace continues to be a \ndominant universal issue. Through its Employment Equity Act (EEA), Canada has \nacted as an exemplar in influencing equality legislation in other countries. The \nCanadian government’s thirtieth EEA annual report to Parliament presents a very \npositive picture of equality in employment for the four designated groups, DG: \n(women, Aboriginal peoples, persons with disabilities, and visible minorities) in \nthe four industry sectors (Banking, Communication, Transportation, Other) \nfederally regulated under the EEA’s legislated employment equity programme \n(LEEP). However, this claim of success is challenged in this study as specious in \nshowing uniform take-up using aggregated LEEP data. A theoretical model is \ndeveloped between variables representing external pressures, at the macro national level, internal pressures, at the meso-organisational level, and their \nhypothesized relationships with reactive and proactive EDI focused programmes \npursued by LEEP organisations. This model is empirically validated by applying \npartial least squares structural equation path modelling to data collected from 440 \nLEEP organisations. Findings reveal that all four DGs are substantially under represented, relative to their labour market availability (LMA), in the majority of \nindividual LEEP organisations, despite over three decades following EEA \nimplementation. DG-LMA representation was also found to differ by industry \nsector. The main contribution to knowledge of this study is the introduction of a \nvalidated predictive EDI model developed and empirically validated for the four \ndesignated groups in the context of Canada. Applications of this generic model \nto other countries for benchmarking and comparative studies could contribute to \nEDI theory, practice and policy, internationally.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
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 score0.132
Threshold uncertainty score0.955

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.006
Science and technology studies0.0180.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.218 · 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
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBradford Scholars (University of Bradford)Same topicIon Channels and ReceptorsFrench-language works237,207