MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1992215166 · doi:10.1080/14766086.2013.801031

The question of theoretical foundations for the spirituality at work movement

2013· article· en· W1992215166 on OpenAlexaff
Richard Hudson

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Management Spirituality & Religion · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicWorkplace Spirituality and Leadership
Canadian institutionsMount Allison University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFoundation (evidence)SpiritualityMovement (music)Work (physics)EpistemologySociologyKey (lock)Engineering ethicsPsychologyPolitical scienceEngineeringPhilosophyLawComputer scienceAestheticsMedicineMechanical engineeringComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Over ten years ago, Benefiel called for the creation of a philosophical foundation for the spirituality at work movement, which she believed to be at risk because of the lack of theory and disagreement about key terms. This paper examines problems involved in setting up such a foundation.

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)0.027
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.029
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.144

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0270.029
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0080.086
Scholarly communication0.0090.017
Open science0.0040.007
Research integrity0.0070.018
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.308 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations32
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Management Spirituality & ReligionSame topicWorkplace Spirituality and LeadershipFrench-language works237,207