MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3112727118 · doi:10.1177/0840470420973051

Authentic and ethical leadership during a crisis

2020· article· en· W3112727118 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

VenueHealthcare Management Forum · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicEthics in medical practice
Canadian institutionsHamilton Health SciencesHealth Sciences Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDisappointmentDistrustEthical leadershipAssertionPublic relationsHumilityPsychologyHealth careCynicismSocial psychologyPolitical scienceLawPsychotherapist

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In today's climate and environment, the conventional relationship between caring, economic, and leadership practices may no longer meet the needs of patients, clinicians, providers, or systems. It is asserted that in the current complicated and complex healthcare environment challenged by a multitude of issues, a shift toward human caring values and an ethic of authentic healing relationships is required, especially in light of the current COVID-19 pandemic. The costs of unethical behaviour can be even greater for followers. When we assume the benefits of leadership, we also assume ethical burdens. It is the assertion and experience of the authors that the triangle of ethics and ethical behaviour, followers, and patient outcomes is closely interrelated and affects each other in a very intimate and direct way. Unethical leadership may lead to follower disappointment and distrust, leading to lack of interest and commitment, consequently negatively impacting patient outcomes and organizational effectiveness.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.742
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.210
GPT teacher head0.471
Teacher spread0.261 · 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