Ethical leadership in a complex environment: A case study on Nunavik health organizations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Despite being the primary homeland of Quebec's Inuit people, Nunavik's health care is typically planned and provided by non‐Inuit newcomers. This retrospective case study investigates the effects of ethical leadership on the Westernized local Nunavik health care system's cultural sensitivity to its disproportionately Inuit populations. An integrative framework is developed that considers the dimensions of ethical leadership and the omnibus and discrete dimensions of context. This study shows that some Nunavik health care managers seek to improve and adapt the system to the needs of their Inuit populations, while others do not. Unfortunately, the context restricts the former managers' ability to act consistently with their moral responsibilities and beliefs. Specifically, the findings show various institutional barriers to providing respectful and sensitive health care to Inuit. This study contributes to the scientific literature on ethical leadership by proposing an integrative conceptual framework. This framework illustrates how ethical leadership is inseparable from organizational context, identifying 16 contextual factors influencing managers' ethical behavior. Finally, three practical recommendations are proposed to highlight the omnibus and discrete context elements.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.025 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".