Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Ethical leadership literature (Bass & Steidlmeier, 1999; Kanungo & Mendonca, 1996) suggests that authentic transformational leadership must be based on some moral foundation. Such literature is not as clear, however, on whether transactional leadership can have moral foundation as well. The paper argues that transformational and transactional leadership behaviours are judged to be ethical based on two different sets of values, motives, and assumptions. These values, motives, and assumptions are grounded in two types of ethical perspective for understanding the behaviour of the two types of leaders. Transformational leaders have an organic worldview and moral altruistic motives grounded in a deontological perspective. Transactional leaders, on the other hand, have an atomistic worldview and mutual altruistic motives grounded in a teleological perspective. Résumé La littérature sur le leadership éthique (Bass & Steidlmeier, 1999; Kanungo & Mendonca, 1996) suggère que le leadership transformationnel authentique doit être basé sur des fondements moraux quelconques. Par con‐tre, la littérature ne précise pas si le leadership trans‐actionnel doit aussi avoir des fondements moraux. Cette étude démontre que les comportements de leadership transformationnels ainsi que transactionnels sont jugés comme étant basés sur deux différents groupes de valeurs, motifs et suppositions en ce qui attrait à l'éthique. Ces valeurs, motifs et suppositions sont fondés sur deux types de perspectives éthiques defaçon à com‐prendre le comportement des deux types de leaders. Les leaders transformationnels out une perception orga‐nique du monde ainsi que des motifs moraux altruistes basés sur une perspective déontologique. À l'opposé, les leaders transactionnels ont une perception atomiste du monde et des motifs mutuels basés sur une perspective téléologique.
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 | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".