Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Fall is around the corner and soon we will have the opportunity to meet at the annual International Leadership Association (ILA) meeting in Vancouver. The Journal of Leadership Studies' (JLS) roundtable discussion at ILA is scheduled for the afternoon of Friday, October 13. Set aside your paraskevidekatriaphobia (fear of Friday the 13th) and please join us to learn more about the journal and how you can get involved as an author, reviewer, or editor. Speaking of editors, I am sad to announce that our Qualitative Methods Editor for the past few years, Dr. Corey Seemiller, is stepping down from her editorial position. During her time at the journal, Dr. Seemiller provided exceptional leadership and guidance for the qualitative section of the journal. As many of you know, Dr. Seemiller is both an expert on leadership as well as Generation Z. Thank you Dr. Seemiller for your work with the journal and good luck with the many activities you have planned. Continuing the editorial theme, I will soon be sending out a call for editors. In addition to replacing Dr. Seemiller as Qualitative Methods Editor, we will be searching for a Quantitative Methods Editor(s), as well as multiple Associate Editors. If you are thinking about the characteristics of a good editor, let me share that I have found the best editors have reviewer experience with the journal and are committed to working collegially with authors. Watch your email for the call later this fall. Now, on to the articles in this issue of the journal. It is really one of the most interesting issues I have been involved with, especially the symposium. Guest Symposium Editor Dr. Caitlin Bletscher has assembled leadership scholars from around the world to highlight the worldwide issues related to refugees and the role leadership can, and does play in assisting refugees. The seven-article symposium highlights the many facets and issues related to refugees and the challenges they face across the globe. Not only did I appreciate learning more about those challenges, but I was also delighted to read about the work leadership scholars, lawyers, and practitioners are engaged in to address the refugees' challenges. The current issue opens with Purcell and Smith's article (Disciplinary Expertise and Faculty Credentialing in Leadership Studies: Advancing a Necessary Conversation) exploring the field of leadership and how, given the diversity in the field, leadership studies needs to have the conversation about the credentials and background of those engaged in leadership activities. The authors do a great job of addressing the many issues regarding credentialing. In closing, I am going to tease our next issue and note that we will likely publish our first Editor's Thoughts articles. I hope you have the chance to read the current issue before your summer is over.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,016 | 0,159 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,004 | 0,003 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,005 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,009 | 0,006 |
| Science ouverte | 0,007 | 0,004 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,009 | 0,011 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,274 | 0,185 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».