Research on the relation Between the Self-Leadership and Work Engagement of the Primary and Junior School Headmaster
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Know about the work engagement of the primary and middle school headmaster and its influence factors to provide a basis to improve it. Use the self-leadership questionnaires and work engagement scales to conduct a questionnaire survey among 220 primary and middle school headmasters. The self-leadership ability and work engagement of the primary and middle school headmaster are both above the average level; except that there is no significant correlation between self-award or self-punishment dimension and contribution or between self-award and concentration, there exist significant correlations between all the dimensions of self-leadership and those of work engagement of the primary and middle school headmaster; It is discovered with the multiple stepwise regression analysis that the prediction of the two factors goal setting and job inner award entered in the regression equation for work engagement reaches 16.6%. A clear job objective, emphasis on the value of the job itself，neglect of the disappointing side in the job and to think about its positive meaning increase the self-leadership ability of the primary and middle school headmaster and finally improve his or her work engagement as well.
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 | 0.009 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.026 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".