MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1996930082 · doi:10.1108/09670730810860645

The spirituality@work protocol

2008· article· en· W1996930082 on OpenAlex
Joan Marques

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueHuman Resource Management International Digest · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicWorkplace Spirituality and Leadership
Canadian institutionsWorkplace Health, Safety and Compensation Commission
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOriginalitySpiritualityWorkforceWork (physics)Protocol (science)Value (mathematics)Profit (economics)Public relationsKnowledge managementBusinessManagementComputer scienceMarketingSociologyCreativityPsychologyPolitical scienceEconomicsSocial psychologyEngineeringMedicineEconomic growth

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose The paper aims to provide a practical, easily understandable protocol toward implementing spirituality in the workplace for business and non‐profit executives and the workforce. Design/methodology/approach Using the initial letters of the words “Spirituality at Work”, the paper outlines the main characteristics of the phenomenon that can bring individual and organizational benefits. Findings The paper describes, with organizational examples, how the protocol can promote elevated human satisfaction, increased return on investment and enhanced quality and quantity of output. Practical implications The paper advances the view that the protocol can be used for every work environment and at every level. Originality/value The paper argues, quoting Mahatma Gandhi, that people who live by the principles of spirituality at work can “be the change they want to see in the world”.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.837
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.084
GPT teacher head0.361
Teacher spread0.277 · 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