MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2772779972 · doi:10.1177/009164711704500303

Spirituality in the Workplace: Practices, Challenges, and Recommendations

2017· article· en· W2772779972 on OpenAlexaffabout
Mark Kam Loon Loo

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Psychology and Theology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicWorkplace Spirituality and Leadership
Canadian institutionsConcordia University of Edmonton
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpiritualityWorkplace spiritualityWorkforcePublic relationsCreativityPsychologyImmigrationService (business)AccommodationSociologySocial psychologyPolitical scienceMarketingBusinessLawMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Spirituality in the workplace has become an organizational behaviour issue in Canada. As 75% of Canadians indicate a religious affiliation, and as immigration and foreign worker programs lend themselves to an increasingly diverse workforce, there is a growing concern for Canadian employers to meet employees' spirituality needs. Further, evolving spirituality definitions demand a study to help organizations better serve employee needs. This research seeks to identify the types and extent of spirituality accommodation in Canadian organizations. Based on an extensive literature review and analysis of employer practices pertaining to spirituality needs, this study constructs four categories of spiritual practices: traditional religion, new age, community service, and creativity. The findings show significantly higher accommodation for creativity and community service than for traditional religion and new age practices. This paper proposes four recommendations to help managers manage spirituality ethically and equitably.

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 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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.855
Threshold uncertainty score0.510

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.201
GPT teacher head0.469
Teacher spread0.268 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations18
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Psychology and TheologySame topicWorkplace Spirituality and LeadershipFrench-language works237,207