MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2120317014 · doi:10.1002/jls.21354

Igniting Passion and Possibilities Through the Arts: Conflict, Collaboration and Leadership Through Live Stage Performances

2015· article· en· W2120317014 on OpenAlexaff
John F. McCarthy, Sandra Deacon Carr

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Leadership Studies · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicManagement and Organizational Studies
Canadian institutionsQuest University Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCourseworkThe artsLiberal arts educationCurriculumSociologyPassionPedagogyValue (mathematics)Leadership developmentPublic relationsManagementPsychologyPolitical scienceVisual artsHigher educationArtComputer scienceSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Leaders today require critical thinking skills and full awareness of the complexities of social and cultural interaction. These may be best taught through the liberal arts. This article examines the use of live dramatic stage performances for teaching and learning contemporary management and leadership lessons, highlighting the value of collaborating across traditional university boundaries through the use of the arts within the management curriculum. We describe the successful working relationships and our effective implementation model with cross‐campus colleagues and students in the theater department to integrate live stage plays into our core management and leadership coursework. Students and faculty from both domains have found the activity to be engaging, provocative, relevant, and valuable. A key finding from this work has been how malleable, smooth, and straightforward the process has been to successfully—and powerfully—integrate the arts and humanities directly into management education and leadership development.

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)0.001
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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.542
Threshold uncertainty score0.513

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.003
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 head0.311
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.015 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations5
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Leadership StudiesSame topicManagement and Organizational StudiesFrench-language works237,207