Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two hundred copies of a small thirty-seven page booklet with a bright orange cardstock cover were published in 1970. The author, Robert Kiefner Greenleaf (1904-1990), introduced a paradox in The Servant as Leader (Greenleaf, 1970) and presented a new approach to leadership including followership and service. Today there is an abundance of literature about the concept of leadership in general, and specifically, about particular types of leadership, for instance, contingency leadership (Fielder & Chemers, 1974); moral leadership (Sergiovanni, 1992); distributive leadership (Harris & Muijs, 2005); lateral leadership (Fisher & Sharp, 2004); shared leadership (Pearce & Conger, 2003); and transformational leadership (Bass & Riggio, 2008). Forty years later, The Servant as Leader (Greenleaf, 1970/2008), and the philosophy of servant-leadership, remains popular and now has been translated into many languages, including Czech, Mandarin Chinese, Turkish, Dutch, French, Spanish, and Japanese (http://www.greenleaf.org/catalog/The_ Servant_as_Leader.html). The endurance and popularity testify to the value of the written content. If our belief system guides our values and our behavior, then an examination of Greenleaf's beliefs may reveal the foundation for his servant-leader ideas first penned at the age of sixty-six. In this article I initiate a discussion of Greenleaf's concept of servant-leadership and his beliefs and practice of Quakerism. The connection may prove vital.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".