Bibliographic record
Abstract
Work related suicide is rarely studied.Professor Stewart Clegg -one of our most published and cited researchers on strategy and organizations -is one of the few, who has recently researched the matter.I catch him on his way through Lyon, France, to get his thoughts on fatal leadership approaches and an authoritarian leadership style in particular. Fatal Leadership Approaches -Can Leadership Kill?Can bad leadership kill?To most of us the question sounds extreme.The answer is: yes, bad leadership in our workplaces can kill the will to live.It is one of those topics largely left in the dark.We don't talk so much about it, we don't research it much and it is rarely part of any public debate.Every year, 800,000 people commit suicide.The World Health Organization estimates that for each death, there are about 20 attempted suicides.Therein each is estimated to have on average three or four family members, this equals the entire populations of Canada and Australia combined being affected by suicide or attempted suicide every year.Moreover, suicide is in fact the second leading cause of death among 15-29 year olds globally (WHO).In relation to work, Suicide Prevention Australia estimates that about 17% of suicides in Australia are work-related.Furthermore,
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
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".