MEN LEADERS AND MATTERS OF GENDER EQUALITY
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis examines how men leaders conceptualize gender equality, their own power and the \npower to uproot gender inequalities, and feminism. An examination of women leader’s \nconceptualizations of gender equality and feminism works to contextualize and validate my \nanalysis of the conceptualizations shared by men leaders, further demonstrating how patterns of \nmeaning-making either overlap or differ between men leaders and women leaders. This project \nreports on interview data in which men leaders and women leaders based in Western Canada \nmade sense of matters of gender equality. I applied a social constructionist lens and a critical \nontological approach to this project, further drawing on theories of feminism and \nintersectionality. I engage in a rigorous reflexive thematic analytic process over five studies to \ndemonstrate how sexist discourse and practice are normalized, enabled, and encouraged - and the \nways in which they may be resisted - within the workplace. I present ten recommendations for \norganizational work toward gender equality that I created based on my analysis of men leaders’ \npatterns of meaning about gender equality, power, and feminism, and how these patterns relate to \nwomen leaders’ patterns of meaning about gender equality, power, and feminism.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".