Bibliographic record
Abstract
Debate over the definition of “spirit at work” continues in both the popular and academic literatures. The lack of a clear, accepted definition has hindered the development of useful measures and has delayed research that would advance our understanding of the conditions/characteristics that influence the experience of spirit at work and the individual and organizational outcomes that result from spirit at work. To obtain a clearer understanding of an individual level construct of spirit at work, an exploratory, qualitative study was conducted. A total of 14 professionals, who not only experienced spirit at work, but whose work also involved researching or promoting spirit at work, participated through face‐to‐face interviews, telephone interviews, or written surveys. Participants were asked about what is spirit at work and then they were asked to describe a personal experience of spirit at work. Although most people had difficulty providing a comprehensive definition for spirit at work, they found it very easy to recall and describe such an experience. These rich descriptions of their personal experiences of spirit at work revealed much consistency in experiences among individuals. Participants’ descriptions revealed that spirit at work is a distinct state that has physical, affective, cognitive, interpersonal, spiritual, and mystical dimensions. This state involves physiological arousal, positive affect, a belief that one's work makes a contribution, a sense of connection to others and common purpose, a sense of connection to something larger than self, and a sense of perfection and transcendence. The usefulness of a clear, comprehensive definition of spirit at work to advancing theory, research, and practice is discussed.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.056 | 0.086 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.038 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.030 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.022 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".