MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7132292547

Dialogue in the Dark (DiD) China: Managing Diversity through Lessons "in the Dark"

2024· other· en· W7132292547 on OpenAlexaff
Byron Y. Lee, Liman Zhao, Huirong Ju, Emily David

Bibliographic record

VenueCEIBS Institutional Repository · 2024
Typeother
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsCentre Casa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFalse accusationDiversity (politics)Great RiftExperiential learningPersonal development
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This case is designed to help students understand how to manage diverse employees with unique strengths and weaknesses. It features the Dialogue in the Dark (“DiD”) China organization, a social enterprise franchise that employs visually impaired people to guide visitors as they experience daily life tasks in pitch-black. After briefly introducing DiD’s origins in Germany and DiD China’s founding story, this case describes how its founder, Shiyin Cai, managed the organization with an emphasis on selecting the right employees, providing training for their personal development, and giving employees opportunities to build self-confidence. Furthermore, this case explores how Cai considers the diverse perspectives of her employees and establishes personal relationships with them to develop enabling conditions that can help them thrive in both this organization and society at large. On December 16, 2021, the tenth anniversary of DiD China, Cai reflected on her past experiences. A month prior, had falsely reported to authorities that DiD Shanghai's operation was in violation of the fire code, an accusation that intensified the existing financial struggles caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. Through the ups and downs, Cai reflected on the challenges and rewards she experienced with founding DiD China. More importantly, on a personal level, she acknowledged her ongoing journey of learning and growth as a leader.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.892
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.030
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.248 · 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 designNot applicable
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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCEIBS Institutional RepositoryFrench-language works237,207