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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The main purpose of the present study was to implement an experiment to explore the effects from coachingbased leadership on goal setting, self-efficacy, and causal attribution. The study comprised of 20 executives and124 middle managers at a branch of a Norwegian Fortune 500 company who all voluntarily participated in anexperiment over a period of one year. The executives who were randomly chosen for the experiment groupconducted a coach specific training programme over one year and executed coaching based leadership with themiddle managers in the experiment group.The study uses ANCOVA to explore possible effects from coaching based leadership on psychological variablesthat have an impact on performance. The ANCOVA analyses from this study supported none out of threeproposed hypotheses. Only one significant change in the experiment group was found, as successful attributionsto ability increased. This study raises important questions about coaching based leadership. The results aremainly discussed related to possible conflicting roles in coaching based leadership and possible lack ofcompetencies among the executives to efficiently fulfil their roles as coaches.Coaching in business is a fast growing industry and this study is a contribution to expand the amount ofempirical studies with an experiment- and control group design that explore the effects from coaching basedleadership.
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 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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it