Ledarintelligens hos chefer och ledare i näringslivet med fokus på själslig intelligens
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this cross-sectional study was to investigate, what in this study is defined as, spiritual intelligence in managers and leaders in private companies, and to validate instruments that measure, as the study defines as, leadership intelligence with a focus on spiritual intelligence. The study evaluated the spiritual intelligence of managers and leaders, and if there was differences in the level of spiritual intelligence between women and men. The study used a questionnaire in which participants were asked to answer questions about spiritual, emotional and rational intelligence. The study validated two scales of spiritual intelligence based on the Canadian instrument, SISRI (The Spiritual Intelligence Self-Report Inventory), one scale for spiritual intelligence, (SQ), which was part of a Swedish instrument, LIQ (Leadership Intelligence Questionnaire), and a new scale for the spiritual intelligence, NySQ. 90 managers and leaders in Vastra Gotaland, 37 women and 53 men, responded to the survey, the average age was 47 years. The survey responses were analyzed using quantitative methods. The study validated Ronthy´s scale of spiritual intelligence that showed a positive significant correlation with two scales that are designed to measure similar concepts. The results showed that women had a higher level of spiritual intelligence than men, and that managers and leaders with a high level of spiritual intelligence also had a high level of rational intelligence. The results shed new lights on abilities that might not have been valued enough in organizations or discussed in formal contexts.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.012 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".