MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2116632671

EXAMINING WORKERS' PERCEPTIONS OF SPIRITUALITY IN THE WORKPLACE: AN EXPLORATORY STUDY

2013· article· en· W2116632671 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Anselmo Ferreira Vasconcelos

Bibliographic record

VenueManagement and Marketing · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicWorkplace Spirituality and Leadership
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSocial psychologyPsychologyReligiositySpiritualityCompassionSociologyHarmony (color)SincerityPolitical scienceLaw
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.368
Threshold uncertainty score0.361

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.069
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.248 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations20
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueManagement and MarketingSame topicWorkplace Spirituality and LeadershipFrench-language works237,207