Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The contemporary managerial work place is changing; baby boomers, the globalization and an increased participation of females in the workforce is redefining what value systems future managers’ will hold. This paper aims to build upon the traditional research on work ethics which focused primarily on working individuals. It seeks to explore future managers’ value systems on life vs work, in a cross‐national context. Design/methodology/approach Previously validated questionnaires, containing 33 work–life values, were completed by business students in two French‐speaking regions of the world: Paris (France) and Quebec (Canada). Factor analysis was employed to examine the underlying value structure of work and life. Findings Five factors emerged, two pertaining to work context, two to life context and one general factor as following: Extrinsic and intrinsic work context, social/society and ego/self‐life context and creativity. Subsequently, a comparison along these values is made between the two regions. Gender differences were also tested along these values. Results show differences in the value systems of these future managers based on region and gender, despite their common French language. Originality/value The paper provides a discussion of implications of the findings, within a context of ethics and social responsibility in reference to the stakeholder model.
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 | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".