MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1000420907

Ombuds’ corner: Speech for the defense of leadership

2012· article· en· W1000420907 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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueCERN Document Server (European Organization for Nuclear Research) · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealthcare Systems and Challenges
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

“First, leadership is a process that is not specifically a function of the person in charge. Leadership is a function of individual wills and individual needs, and the result of the dynamics of collective will organized to meet those various needs. Second, leadership is a process of adaptation and of evolution; it is a process of dynamic exchange and the interchanges of value. Leadership is deviation from convention. Third, leadership is a process of energy, not structure. In this way, leadership is different from management – managers pursue stability, while leadership is all about change.”* Once again, during the 2011-2012 year, like the first year of my function, around one half of the issues reported to the Ombuds had to do with evaluation ("evaluative relationship") and career progression and development. These two categories are linked to the role of managers or leaders. This is also usually the case in other institutions, where managers are promoted to such a function due primarily to their outstanding technical skills, and not so much by taking their potential for human leadership - or their lack thereof - into consideration. Scientific excellence in research, education and innovation is the cornerstone of our culture. The Laboratory would gain even more efficiency by promoting a corresponding excellence in human leadership. Ultimately, all case issues have an impact on the work and dedication of our personnel; a respectful workplace environment is the best guarantee of the highest effectiveness in all our missions**. That calls for leadership driven by good ethics, beyond pure management and control. Conclusion: From the many cases that I have seen, I believe that our culture should equally promote and include a culture favouring an excellence in leadership. How? By making use of the new tool we have: the integrated Competency Model. Number of cases by issue during the period July 2011 to June 2012 * “Leadership and Change: The Case for Greater Ethical Clarity”, by Bernard Burnes and Rune Todnem, Journal of Business Ethics (2012), 108:239-252 and “The nature of Leadership”, by R.A. Barker (2001), Human Relations, 54(4), 469-494. ** See the column by Sharone Bar-David, in Canadian HRReporter, November 15, 2010 © Copyright Thomson Reuters Canada Ltd., November 15, 2010, Toronto, Ontario, (800) 387-5164. Web site: www.hrreporter.com Contact the Ombuds Early!

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.797
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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 head0.250
GPT teacher head0.411
Teacher spread0.161 · 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