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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Leaders' capacity has become mission‐critical in many organizations today. However, this business challenge is a struggle for many. Part of the reason is that current approaches to building leadership capacity are failing to hit the mark, and many senior leaders have little confidence in their organization's leadership development programs. This article aims to examine how organizations can close the leadership gap in their organizations by implementing an integrated approach to leadership development. Design/methodology/approach The evolution of leadership development is discussed and a framework is presented to examine traditional approaches and consider their limitations. Findings The integrated‐solution approach to leadership development represents a more strategic, synergistic and sustainable way for organizations to build the leadership capacity they require to gain competitive advantage. The integrated solution is intense. It requires serious commitment on the part of organizations, their senior leaders and from HR. The process also is more complex. In the long‐term though, the integrated‐solution approach delivers greater value to organizations and ensures that their investment in leadership development is optimized. Originality/value The article presents practical and proven strategies to overcome the leadership gap in organizations today
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it