MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W37070533 · doi:10.1002/nbm.4952

Do Teachers of Management "Practice What They Preach"?

2009· article· en· W37070533 on OpenAlexfundno aff
John McElvaney

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Review of Business Research Papers · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicManagement and Organizational Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsArgument (complex analysis)Transactional leadershipNorm (philosophy)Management theoryWork (physics)SociologyPsychologyPedagogyPublic relationsPolitical scienceManagement scienceLawEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

\n\t\t\t\t\tThis paper reports on the teaching of management units and examines the teaching practices inline with the management and in particular the leadership and motivation techniques and theories that are taught in these units. The theory challenges the notion that many management academics “Practice what they Preach”. In a dynamic environment that cries out for Transformation Leadership, Transactional management is often the norm. The findings highlight that academics especially management executive academics do “Practice what they Preach” and this counters the argument by some Theory ‘X’ academics that students have an inherent dislike of work and will avoid it if they can. Leading to the only way to get most students to work and study is they must be coerced, controlled, directed, threatened with punishing with bad marks or failure. (McGregor 1960 p34) \n\t\t\t\t

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.049
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.055

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.049
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.008
Scholarly communication0.0070.010
Open science0.0020.006
Research integrity0.0070.010
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0170.008

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.314 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations3
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Review of Business Research PapersSame topicManagement and Organizational StudiesFrench-language works237,207