MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2327634502 · doi:10.15183/slm2012.06.1116

Role of meditative foundation entrepreneurial leadership and new venture success

2012· article· en· W2327634502 on OpenAlexaff
Malavika Sundararajan, Binod Sundararajan, Sybil Henderson

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Spirituality Leadership and Management · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicEntrepreneurship Studies and Influences
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersDurham UniversityNorth Carolina Central University
KeywordsFoundation (evidence)Entrepreneurial leadershipManagementPsychologyBusinessBusiness administrationEntrepreneurshipPolitical scienceEconomicsFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The inability of CEOs and founders to be effective leaders has been one of the chief reasons identified for nearly 80% of new venture firms' failures within the first five years of being established.Entrepreneurial leadership has thus begun to garner increased attention as a result of the recognition that entrepreneurs cannot successfully develop new ventures without displaying effective leadership behaviors.While current leadership theories applied to entrepreneurial settings prescribe changing from transformational to transactional as per the environmental demands, a more foundational theory of entrepreneurial leadership that can be consistently implemented through all the phases of new venture creation and management is currently lacking.In order to provide a more consistent leadership style, based on the theory of meditative foundation, our paper proposes a spiritual entrepreneurial leadership model that can support new venture success by increasing founders' and CEOs' ability to be effective leaders in varying scenarios.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.081
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.201 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations13
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Spirituality Leadership and ManagementSame topicEntrepreneurship Studies and InfluencesFrench-language works237,207