MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3042663119 · doi:10.1177/1052562920945739

Spiritual Practice and Management Education Pedagogy: Exploring the Philosophical Foundations of Three Spiritual Traditions

2020· article· en· W3042663119 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueOrganizational Behavior Teaching Review · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicWorkplace Spirituality and Leadership
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDiscernmentSociologyPedagogyReflexivityEngineering ethicsBuddhismSpiritual developmentSpiritualityEpistemologyPhilosophySocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Can the philosophical foundations of spiritual practices inform management education pedagogy and in the long-run support emotional development and more ethical and responsible business practice? In this article, we introduce the essential aspects of three different spiritual traditions—Daoist inner work, Buddhist mindful reflexivity, and Quaker discernment—and lay out some foundations between these essential aspects and management education pedagogy. We offer examples of utilizing these concepts in teaching business ethics in order to offer a foundational discussion for future elaboration. Our experiences also illuminate that instructor preparation is a key ingredient if the kinds of teaching we advance are to gain traction and contribute to the repeated calls for pedagogical innovations that challenge dominant paradigms. We offer some concluding remarks, pathways for future research and indicate a list of resources that can support potential instructors.

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.

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)0.001
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 score0.957
Threshold uncertainty score0.847

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.174
GPT teacher head0.400
Teacher spread0.227 · 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