MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2469446928 · doi:10.1080/14766086.2016.1184099

Mississippi missionaries’ workplace spirituality and organizational commitment (1698–1725): a case study

2016· article· en· W2469446928 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Linda C. Jones

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Management Spirituality & Religion · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicWorkplace Spirituality and Leadership
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpiritualityOrganizational commitmentPublic relationsWorkplace spiritualityWork (physics)SociologyPolitical scienceManagementEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The relationship between workplace spirituality and organizational commitment in modern settings is often examined using models focused on personal and organizational performance. Meant for contemporary practices, such tools can enhance understanding of organizations in the historic record, benefiting not only historians but researchers who wish to ameliorate commitment in organizations. Utilizing a recent model focused on workplace spirituality and organizational commitment, this study examines the leadership of the Séminaire de Québec and the Séminaire des Missions Etrangères de Paris as well as their secular missionaries assigned to work in villages on the Mississippi River in the early eighteenth century. Analyses demonstrate that the inability to maintain communication, support, and community between leadership and missionaries greatly hampered commitment to the organization and to the Mississippi missions. Only Father Bergier remained strongly committed to his work and the Seminaries due to his personal sense of calling, devotion, leadership, and spirituality.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.202
Threshold uncertainty score0.402

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0180.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.288 · 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 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

Citations10
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Management Spirituality & ReligionSame topicWorkplace Spirituality and LeadershipFrench-language works237,207