MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1975631192 · doi:10.5430/jms.v2n1p48

A Research on the Relationship between Leadership Orientations and the Innovativeness of Owner-Managers in Turkish Businesses

2011· article· en· W1975631192 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Evren Ayrancı

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Management and Strategy · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicEntrepreneurship Studies and Influences
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTurkishAffect (linguistics)Leadership stylePerceptionBusinessPublic relationsTransactional leadershipMarketingShared leadershipPsychologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Relevant literature notes that leadership in business contexts inspires innovativeness. This study considers this insight as a starting point but moves beyond the existing literature by focusing only on leaders to understand how leadership inspires a leader’s own innovativeness. The author chose the people who own and manage a business (owner-managers) and used the perceptions of workers in businesses to evaluate the existence of leadership as well as leadership orientations of owner-managers. The key objectives of this study – namely, evaluating how perceived leadership and leadership orientations of owner-managers affect their own innovativeness – reveal remarkable results. There are two leadership orientations, one focusing on the work and the other that focuses on people. There are many factors related to owner-manager innovativeness. The perceived leadership of owner-managers moderately affects their innovativeness in a positive direction. The factors related to people-oriented leadership can also affect their innovativeness positively at a moderate level.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.370
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.022 · 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

Citations8
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Management and StrategySame topicEntrepreneurship Studies and InfluencesFrench-language works237,207