MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2013319864 · doi:10.5539/ass.v10n3p112

Leadership Style of Religious School Headmasters and Its Relationship to Academic Achievement in Brunei Darussalam

2014· article· en· W2013319864 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Gamal Abdul Nasir Zakaria, Halimah Kamis, Salwa Mahalle, Aliff Nawi

Bibliographic record

VenueAsian Social Science · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducation and Islamic Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLeadership styleStyle (visual arts)CertificatePsychologyMathematics educationPositive relationshipAcademic achievementPedagogySocial psychologyMathematicsGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This research was conducted at 15 religious schools in Tutong District. The objectives of this research are to identify leadearship style and its relationship to academic achievement. The “Leader Behaviour Description Questionnaire” (LBDQ) formed by Halpin (1966) was used. Meanwhile Academic achievement was measured using the “School Certificate Examination Results, Religious Primary School (SSSRU) from 2008-2011. A total of 191 teachers and 15 headmasters from religious school in Tutong District were randomly chosen. Pearson correlation was used to analyse the data. To support data obtained from questionnaire given 10 teachers were interviewed . The results showed that most of the school leaders adopt a democratic style of leadership. There was a significant correlation between the structure of task-oriented leadership style and students’ performance in the examinations. Correlation analysis also showed that headmasters practice task- oriented structure and consideration-oriented structure in relation to their work responsiblities. Furthermore, findings also showed that majority of the headmasters are more likely to practice consideration-oriented leadership style compared to structure-oriented leadership style.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.600
Threshold uncertainty score0.509

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.073
GPT teacher head0.362
Teacher spread0.289 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations6
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAsian Social ScienceSame topicEducation and Islamic StudiesFrench-language works237,207