Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to invite managers and practitioners to reflect on the meaning and implications of the concept of zero for individual and organizational spiritual growth. Design/methodology/approach Building on spirituality and complexity literatures, this paper stimulates non‐traditional thinking in organizational change and leadership. The paper uses the concept of zero as a creative metaphor for organizational development. Findings The paper introduces a systemic, unified, multidimensional, holistic, complex, chaotic and dynamic paradigm for organizations based on spirituality: paradigm zero. Zero represents paradox, transcendence, interconnectedness, balance, modesty, creativity, inspiration, and the essence and mystery of human existence. Practical implications This paper invites managers to consider a futurist perspective called zero‐centered thinking that enables creativity and reflection in the middle of complexity. Originality/value This paper builds on cutting edge spirituality and complexity concepts to enable new thinking for twenty‐first century managers and professionals. Zero philosophy provides organizations a new trans‐disciplinary paradigm based on spirituality, complexity, chaos, systems sciences, quantum physics, emergence, and Sufism.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".