EXAMINING WORKERS' PERCEPTIONS OF SPIRITUALITY IN THE WORKPLACE: AN EXPLORATORY STUDY
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There has been growinginterest in workplace spiritualitytheory. However, research haspredominantly been focused on USAand Canada, except some recentinitiatives. Taking it into account, thepurpose of this study is to delve intohow Brazilian workers see, perceive, and define workplace spirituality. Byemploying a phenomenologicalapproach, this study found 34 corethemes, 12 of which were alsoidentified in a previous investigationconducted by Marques et al. (2007), namely: trust, openness, kindness(compassion and friendship), honesty, moral and ethics, a sense of peaceand harmony, aesthetically pleasingwork environment, team orientation, understanding, faith in god, respect, and truth. The remaining 22 themes -which constitute the novelcontribution of this study - are as follows: fun, love, well-being, a senseof religiosity, serenity, socialresponsibility, tolerance, sincerity, meaning of work, higher values, human valuing, coherent attitudes, common interests and objectives, politeness, willing to offer guidanceand be an example, stimulatingenvironment, listening to and belistened, praying habit, patience, positive energies and thoughts, concerns with other’s well-being, andthe spirit of solidarity. In addition, this research design enabled to makesome comparisons between twodistinct cultural contexts (i.e., Brazilian and American), whichcontributes to broaden the crosscultural management knowledge.
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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".