Consistencia entre el enfoque de liderazgo y los estilos de liderar: clave para la transformación y el cambio
Bibliographic record
Abstract
El propósito de este artículo es mostrar la importancia del alineamiento entre el liderazgo —como una decisión de la alta dirección— y el estilo de liderar —como una elección del líder— para que el aprendizaje organizativo sea una realidad. El estudio se define como descriptivo, exploratorio y transversal. El concepto de aprendizaje tiene varias acepciones, perspectivas de análisis y aplicaciones, las cuales van desde una perspectiva individual hasta una perspectiva organizacional, y puede enfocarse desde la perspectiva de cambio, del conocimiento o de ambas. En cuanto proceso organizativo el aprendizaje está, en gran medida, bajo la implementación, el control y la administración de la alta dirección de la empresa. Aprender, por tanto, se ha constituido en una capacidad organizativa fundamental para que la organización pueda mantener su posición competitiva. Sobre todo, si se reconoce que, en general, debe actuar en entornos dinámicos y turbulentos.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".