Student Perception of the Social Value of Responsible Management
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In responsible management, managerial efficiency and sustainable development meet and influence each other. In order to give meaning to their organisation, to respect and look after their collaborators, a manager must promote a set of values on a personal, organisational and societal level. The purpose of this paper is to study the social value attributed to responsible management by students of a technical university. We have therefore undertaken to study a set of seven values attributed to responsible management and, more precisely, their utility and social desirability on a personal, organisational and societal level. The values have been operationalized with personality descriptors. The 60 participants in this study are students from a Romanian technical university. They had to assess, on four scales of seven points each (two for desirability and two for social utility), the value of a person characterised by one of the seven values attributed to responsible management. The results show us that efficiency is the value perceived by the students as being the most desirable for responsible management, and that in terms of social utility, agility is the most appreciated value. We found that there is indeed an effect of the context in which these values are perceived. Efficiency, audacity, dedication and integrity are perceived as more useful at an organisational level, while solidarity was perceived as more useful on a societal level. At the organisational level we also found a gender effect, in the sense that women appreciate people who are efficient, have integrity or are humble more than men do.
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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".