Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper explores Benedictine leadership as a concept and praxis hinged on the value of charity. It underscores the tenets of Care ethics in conjunction with Benedictine Spirituality.
 Using philosophical and theological lens, this paper attempts to 1) present the Benedictine Leadership vis-à-vis Care ethics 2) proffer that charity or care is the driving force of a transformational leader and, 3) purport that a caring leader, directly or indirectly, can transform policies and practices as s/he carves spaces for communion.
 References
 Casey, M., St. Benedict's Teaching on the Abbot. Introducing Benedict's Rule. St.Ottilien, 2006.
 Chodorow, Nancy. The Reproduction of Mothering. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1978.
 Chodorow, Nancy. The Reproduction of Mothering: Psychoanalysis and the Sociology of Gender. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1978.
 Evans, Christopher. Saint Luke Philadelphia: Trinity, 1990.
 Fitzmyer, Joseph A. The Gospel according to Luke. New York: Doubleday 1981.
 Friedman, Marilyn. “Beyond Caring: The De-Moralization of Gender,” in Marsha Hanen and Kai Nielsen, eds., Science, Morality and Feminist Theory. Calgary: University of Calgary Press, 1987.
 Friedman, Marilyn. “Beyond Caring: The De-moralization of Gender” in John Dienhart, Dennis Moberg, Ron Duska eds. The Next Phase of Business Ethics: Integrating Psychology and Ethics Research in Ethical Issues in Organizations, Volume 3, pp. 399-416. USA: Emerald Group Publishing Limited, 2001.
 Fry, Timothy OSB (ed.) The Rule of St. Benedict in English. Collegeville, Minnesota: The Liturgical Press, 1982.
 Gilligan, Carol. In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women’s Development. Cambridge Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1983, 1992.
 Gilligan, Carol. Ward, Janie. Taylor, Jill McLean and Bardige, Betty eds., Mapping the Moral Domain: A Contribution of Women’s Thinking to Psychological Theory and Education. USA: Harvard University Press, 1988. 
 Green, Joel B. The Gospel of Luke. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997.
 Held, Virginia. Feminist Morality: Transforming Culture, Society, and Politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1993.
 Held, Virginia. The Ethics of Care: Personal, Political and Global. New York: Oxford University Press, 2006.
 Hultgren, Alrand J. The Parables of Jesus: A Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000.
 Kant, Immanuel. Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals, ed. and trans. Allen W. Wood. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2002.
 Kardong, Terence. Benedict’s Rule: A Translation and Commentary. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1996.
 Marshall, Howard I. The Gospel of Luke: A Commentary on the Greek Text Exeter: Paternoster, 1978.
 Mill, John Stuart. The Subjection of Women. N.p.: The Floating Press, 1869/2009.
 Milstein, Brian. "Habermas and Kohlberg: An Exercise in Feminist Critique." Unpublished paper. New York: New School for Social Research; http://magictheatre.panopticweb.com/aesthetics/writings/kohlberg.html / accessed 20 Oct.2013.
 Noddings, Nel. Caring: A Feminine Approach to Ethics and Moral Education. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1986.
 Noddings, Nel. Starting at Home: Caring and Social Policy. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2002.
 Ricouer, Paul. in “The Socius and the Neighbor,” History and Truth, trans. Charles A. Kelbley. Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 1965.
 Sevenhuijsen, Selma. Citizenship and the Ethics of Care: Feminist Considerations on Justice, Morality and Politics. London: Routledge, 1998.
 Snodgrass, Klyne. Stories with Intent: A Comprehensive Guide to the Parables of Jesus. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008.
 Tronto, Joan. Moral Boundaries: A Political Argument for an Ethic of Care. London: Routledge, 1993.
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 | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.016 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
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".