MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1986865703 · doi:10.1108/01437730110403187

Exploring commitment and leadership in volunteer organizations

2001· article· en· W1986865703 on OpenAlexaffabout
Victor M. Catano, Morgan Pond, E. Kevin Kelloway

Bibliographic record

VenueLeadership & Organization Development Journal · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicNonprofit Sector and Volunteering
Canadian institutionsSaint Mary's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTransformational leadershipTransactional leadershipPublic relationsSocializationContext (archaeology)Organizational commitmentLeadership styleSocial psychologyPsychologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Volunteer organizations, where there is no employment relationship between the member and the organization, represent an interesting context in which to explore the effects of leadership and organizational commitment. We present the results from a study of 212 Canadian volunteer leaders from an international social/charitable organization. Volunteer leaders were more psychologically involved and committed to their organization than comparable leaders from a trade union. The volunteer leaders rated higher than their union counterparts in transformational leadership and socialization. Union leaders were more transactional and held stronger Marxist work beliefs. Both volunteer and union leaders reported similar humanistic views on work. There were no differences with respect to inter‐role conflict that both types of leaders experienced. Discussion of the results focuses on application of these findings to changing organizational environments and their interaction of work and non‐work issues.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.069

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.433
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.131 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations88
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLeadership & Organization Development JournalSame topicNonprofit Sector and VolunteeringFrench-language works237,207