MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386747798 · doi:10.56206/husbd.1353189

45 Years of Authentic Leadership Research: A Bibliometric Analysis between 1978 and 2023

2023· article· en· W4386747798 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Nevra BAKER

Bibliographic record

VenueHaliç Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicOrganizational Leadership and Management Strategies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAuthentic leadershipSociologyTransactional leadershipEducational leadershipPolitical scienceManagementLibrary sciencePedagogyPublic relations

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This qualitative study analyzes the past 45 years of research on authentic leadership through conducting bibliometric analysis. Using R and R Studio, articles on authentic leadership that are published in the Web of Science have been analyzed. The findings of the bibliometric analysis reveal that a total of 2635 articles have been published on authentic leadership, and the first article on the subject appeared in 1978. Further analysis uncovered that the highest numbers of articles on authentic leadership have been published in 2022. Most of the body of literature on authentic leadership are found in the Journal of Business Ethics, The Leadership Quarterly, and the Leadership & Organization Development Journal. H.K.S. Laschinger, Y. Lee, and W. L. Gardner are the top three researchers that contributed most to the body of knowledge on authentic leadership, and the top three affiliations are University of Western Ontario, University of Queensland, and University of Miami. The most productive countries are USA, China, and the UK; and the most frequently used words are “authentic leadership”, “performance”, and “impact”.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmaBibliometrics
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Not applicablelow
gptBibliometrics
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Other designhigh
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesBibliometrics, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesBibliometrics
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.113
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0740.187
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.177
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.126 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

Bibliometrics

The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.

Study designNot applicable · Other design
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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHaliç Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler DergisiSame topicOrganizational Leadership and Management StrategiesCategoryBibliometricsFrench-language works237,207