MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2050500587 · doi:10.1080/08832323.2011.627891

Enhancing Critical Thinking by Teaching Two Distinct Approaches to Management

2012· article· en· W2050500587 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Education for Business · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicManagement and Marketing Education
Canadian institutionsNorthern Alberta Institute of TechnologyUniversity of WindsorUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCritical thinkingProductivityProfitability indexBalance (ability)PsychologyKnowledge managementMathematics educationComputer scienceBusinessEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The authors explore the effect on students’ critical thinking of teaching only one approach to management versus teaching two approaches to management. Results from a quasiexperiment—which included a survey, interviews, and case analysis—suggest that compared with students who are taught only a conventional approach to management (which emphasizes maximizing productivity, profitability, and competitiveness), students who are taught a conventional and an alternative approach (which seeks to balance multiple forms of well-being for multiple stakeholders) exhibit enhanced critical thinking. Implications for management education are discussed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.602
Threshold uncertainty score0.663

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.251 · 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