MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4321215084 · doi:10.37467/revhuman.v12.3498

Understanding Leadership Effectiveness in the wake of challenges: a leadership competency model

2023· article· en· W4321215084 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Samir Rawat, Abhijit P. Deshpande, Ole Boe, Andrzej Piotrowski

Bibliographic record

VenueHUMAN REVIEW International Humanities Review / Revista Internacional de Humanidades · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicResilience and Mental Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCanadian Defence AcademyTemple UniversityUniversity of CanterburyFamily Process InstituteProQuest
KeywordsNoticePreparednessPublic relationsLeadership studiesLeadership developmentShared leadershipSet (abstract data type)Leadership styleSituational leadership theoryPolitical scienceResilience (materials science)NeuroleadershipLeadershipPower (physics)SociologyComputer scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this article, researchers will introduce readers to the concept of leadership through perspectives of different schools of leadership thoughts. We intend to bring to notice an important discussion on leadership in military organisations and its implications on non-military organisations and institutions. There is a plethora of literature especially borrowing from military literature, which can set the stage for our understanding of what could make up for a robust leadership model comprising of competencies like- power of personal example and influence, adaptive resilience, making critical decisions amid uncertainty, regulated leadership behaviors and thoughts, preparedness, communicating with teams and building trust.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.006
Scholarly communication0.0040.005
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.613
GPT teacher head0.458
Teacher spread0.154 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHUMAN REVIEW International Humanities Review / Revista Internacional de HumanidadesSame topicResilience and Mental HealthFrench-language works237,207