Les confusions entourant le « leadership éthique » dans les organisations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Le leadership éthique est actuellement sur toutes les lèvres et présenté comme une panacée afin d’éviter les grands scandales qui secouent les milieux d’affaires, dans quelque pays que ce soit. Pourtant, savons-nous exactement de quoi il est question lorsque nous parlons d’un leadership éthique ? S’agit-il d’un style de leadership dont la particularité est d’être « éthique », ce qui suggérerait que les autres styles seraient d’emblée non-éthiques ? Ou bien les caractéristiques de certains styles de leadership les rendent-ils « éthiques » ? Trois principales confusions surviennent dès que la question de la nature du leadership éthique est abordée : une confusion ethnocentrique (sur le plan culturel et sociétal), une confusion axiologique (sur le plan des valeurs embrassées par le leader) et une confusion philosophique (se rapportant au fondement philosophique du leadership considéré comme « éthique »).
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 | 0.032 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.044 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".