MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2912786755 · doi:10.1080/14766086.2019.1570474

The material nature of spirituality in the small business workplace: from transcendent ethical values to immanent ethical actions

2019· article· en· W2912786755 on OpenAlexafffund
Cathy Driscoll, Elizabeth McIsaac, Elden Wiebe

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Management Spirituality & Religion · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicWorkplace Spirituality and Leadership
Canadian institutionsThe King's UniversitySaint Mary's University
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsSpiritualityWorkplace spiritualityImmanenceMeaning (existential)SociologyBusiness ethicsEthical leadershipPsychologyEnvironmental ethicsSocial psychologyEpistemologyPublic relationsPolitical sciencePsychotherapistPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We interviewed leaders of small businesses who have integrated spirituality from diverse spiritual traditions into their workplaces. We contribute to a better understanding of the motives and deeply held values behind the integration of spirituality in the small business workplace, of how spiritual values and meaning are manifest in small business, and of how spirituality can be integrated into small business processes and behaviors. We build upon previous theoretical development of an authentically and spirituality informed management theory by focusing on the concepts of immanence and involvement, and integration and interconnectedness, as they relate to ethical and socially responsible behavior in workplaces. Our findings contrast some ways that workplace spirituality has been reported to be institutionalized in the management, spirituality, and religion literature.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.011
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0000.003
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.306 · 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

Citations44
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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