MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1550001144

The Democratic School: First to serve, then to lead

2005· article· en· W1550001144 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Carolyn Crippen

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Educational Administration and Policy · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicTeacher Education and Leadership Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsServant leadershipTransformational leadershipDemocracyLeadershipLeadership styleSociologyShared leadershipPublic relationsDemocratizationPolitical scienceManagementPoliticsEconomicsLaw
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Today there has been a shift in the organizational structure in our schools (Murphy and Seashore Louis, 1999). These include educational leadership shifts in roles, relationships, and responsibilities; the alteration of traditional patterns of relationships; and the fact that authority tends to be less hierarchical. Senge (1990) believes systems that change require a variety of leadership types at different times in organizational development. As schools move toward democratization, it appears that servant-leadership may be one such vehicle for possible systems change, within educational organizations. Servant-leadership is not a panacea. It is a transformational, democratic form of leadership that requires time to implement and to provide abundant opportunities to involve all members of the learning community. The following paper will present the theoretical framework of servant-leadership, a concept identified by Robert K. Greenleaf in his seminal work, The Servant as Leader (1970/1991), and link servant-leadership to current literature on democratic schools. The paper will conclude with suggestions for the sustainable development of servant-leadership in the educational milieu.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.053

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0120.011
Scholarly communication0.0110.008
Open science0.0010.007
Research integrity0.0030.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.004

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 head0.079
GPT teacher head0.400
Teacher spread0.321 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations54
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Educational Administration and PolicySame topicTeacher Education and Leadership StudiesFrench-language works237,207