MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Leadership and Followership from a Social Cognition Perspective: A Dual Process Account

2012· book-chapter· en· W2626485769 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueOxford University Press eBooks · 2012
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicManagement Theory and Practice
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFollowershipDual (grammatical number)Perspective (graphical)CognitionProcess (computing)ConnectionismSchematicCognitive scienceInformation processingPsychologyFunction (biology)Information processing theoryComputer scienceKnowledge managementCognitive psychologySocial psychologyArtificial intelligenceEngineeringNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This chapter explores the leadership literature through the lens of a dual processing perspective, indicating that human cognition consists of an automatic system (System 1) and a conscious system (System 2). In particular, it addresses follower and leader information processing from the dual-process paradigm. It is observed that quick, nonconscious processing plays a tremendous role in leadership and followership. The nature, acquisition, retention, and retrieval of information in System 1 follow a connectionist architecture, and function in accordance with the properties that have been typically attributed to schematic knowledge. The ability to engage System 2 has been compared to a muscle, which needs time to recover. In general, the data indicate that leadership scholars may want to consider mental events through the lens of an old, yet increasingly dominant, human-information-processing paradigm: the dual-process model.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.965
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.067
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.168 · 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