MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2051095027 · doi:10.1080/14766086.2011.630170

Workplace spirituality and employee engagement

2011· article· en· W2051095027 on OpenAlex
Alan M. Saks

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 Management Spirituality & Religion · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicWorkplace Spirituality and Leadership
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWorkplace spiritualitySpiritualityEmployee engagementEmployee resource groupsPsychologyTranscendence (philosophy)Work engagementSocial psychologyWork (physics)Public relationsEmployee researchSociologyPolitical scienceEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Interest in workplace spirituality and employee engagement has increased considerably over the last decade among practitioners and scholars. However, even though both topics focus on the importance of the spirit at work, they have emerged independent of each other with little attention to how they are related. In this paper, I describe how workplace spirituality and employee engagement are related and the implications of workplace spirituality for employee engagement. In particular, I describe the importance of workplace spirituality for meaningfulness at work and for engagement maintenance and generalization. A model of workplace spirituality and employee engagement is presented in which three dimensions of workplace spirituality (transcendence, community, and spiritual values) relate to employee engagement through four psychological conditions (meaningfulness in work, meaningfulness at work, safety, and availability). The paper concludes with a discussion of the implications of the model for research and practice on workplace spirituality and employee engagement.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.583
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.093
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.232 · 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