Correlation between Development of Ethical Behavior and its Consequences in Workplace Environment, and Organizational Health
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and Aim: This research has been done with the purpose of determining correlation between development of ethical behavior and its consequences in work place environment, and the health of organization.Materials and Methods: This research is theoretically correlative descriptive and benefits a practical purpose. The research population included 5083 people from the staff of Azad and state universities in Mazandaran, among them based on Kerjecy and Morgan table via simple random sampling 346 people were selected as the sample of research. The instruments included two questionnaires, a standard health of organization questionnaire with 21 questions and a researcher-made questionnaire of development of ethical behavior in work place environment with 35 questions which by applying preliminary design on a sample of 30 people the reliability was reported 0.94. The data were analyzed descriptively and inferentially by using mean, standard deviation, Pearson correlation coefficient, fisher and Regression statistic.Ethical Considerations: Before the distribution of the questionnaires, objectives and method of implementation of the study were explained to the participants. In addition, written informed consents were obtained from the subjects prior to the study, and they were assured of the confidentiality terms regarding their personal information. The participants were also allowed to withdraw from the study at any time.Findings: The results show a linear relationship between teaching ethical principles, selection of the staff with ethical potentiality, propagation of ethical rules and codes, degree of managers’ commitment to ethical standards, and eventually development of ethical behavior and the health of the organization.Conclusion: Considering the results and in order to have a healthy organization founded on a healthy basis it is recommended that officials and authorities at high levels of organizational hierarchy have a special attitude towards selecting managers with good ethical manners, and diligently try to adopt policies to draft an ethical charter in the organization.Citation: Zameni F. Correlation Between Development of Ethical Behavior and Its Consequences in Workplace Environment, and Organizational Health. Bioeth Health Law J. 2017; 1(3):31-34.
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 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 | 0.008 | 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 | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".