Virtuous organization: A structural equation modeling approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
For years, the idea of virtue was unfavorable among researchers and virtues were traditionally considered as culture-specific, relativistic and they were supposed to be associated with social conservatism, religious or moral dogmatism, and scientific irrelevance. Virtue and virtuousness have been recently considered seriously among organizational researchers. The proposed study of this paper examines the relationships between leadership, organizational culture, human resource, structure and processes, care for community and virtuous organization. Structural equation modeling is employed to investigate the effects of each variable on other components. The data used in this study consists of questionnaire responses from employees in Payam e Noor University in Yazd province. A total of 250 questionnaires were sent out and a total of 211 valid responses were received. Our results have revealed that all the five variables have positive and significant impacts on virtuous organization. Among the five variables, organizational culture has the most direct impact (0.80) and human resource has the most total impact (0.844) on virtuous organization.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".