Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to propose mindfulness (e.g. practices such as yoga, meditation) as a fruitful addition to women leader/ship development research and practice, specifically as a means through which to prevent and mitigate negative health outcomes. Design/methodology/approach This is a literature review-based paper that integrates scholarly research on gender and women’s leadership, well-being (including stress reduction), women leader/ship development and mindfulness. Findings Women continue to be under-represented in senior leadership roles and many confront a “labyrinth” of “gender-organization-system” challenges throughout their careers. These challenges can have material effects on the well-being of women leaders. Research reveals positive psychological and biological effects of mindfulness practices on well-being (including stress). Some of this research reveals that women are more likely to engage in mindfulness practices and experience greater benefits. Leader/ship development programs designed specifically for women are needed, and it is proposed that incorporating mindfulness into these programs may result in beneficial outcomes for women leaders. Originality/value This research contributes to the limited body of work on women leader/ship development, mindfulness and leadership.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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".