MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2008582498 · doi:10.5539/ass.v9n7p179

Relationship between Spiritual Leadership and Organizational Commitment in Malaysians’ Oil and Gas Industry

2013· article· en· W2008582498 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Norudin Mansor, Ahmad Haziq Ismail, Mohd Afifie Mohd Alwi, Nurhani Anwar

Bibliographic record

VenueAsian Social Science · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicWorkplace Spirituality and Leadership
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPetroleum industryProductivityContext (archaeology)Perspective (graphical)MarketingBusinessPublic relationsPsychologyManagementPolitical scienceEconomicsEconomic growth

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The study attempts to fill in the empirical gap of spiritual leadership relationship with organizational commitment in the oil and gas industry in Malaysia. On a wider perspective, the study will provide an insight on spiritual leadership adoption in the oil and gas industry and how well it has contributed to the overall efficiency towards productivity and growth. The effectiveness of a particular leadership approach may differ from one industry to another based on the demographic, geographic or principle of business factors. In an attempt to get an adequate and good generalization, out of approximately 106,000 populations, 203 respondents were selected from 11 main subgroups: namely the oil and gas related firms operating within the gazetted industrialed zone by using quota sampling. Relying on four constructs measuring spiritual leadership the investigation hypothesized their relationship with the committment at work. The findings of the research may serve as a reference for organizations to make decisions on the leadership approach that suits with the organizational environment. Similar studies on the context of spiritual leadership conducted by researchers around the world have been sparse due to the fact that the implementation of such approach is still at its infancy. Therefore, the findings from the study are important to contribute to the academic literatures as well as to provide enrichment in the discussion of the subject matter.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.090
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.231 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations31
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAsian Social ScienceSame topicWorkplace Spirituality and LeadershipFrench-language works237,207