Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper describes and theorizes principals’ support for teacher professional development (‘PD’) during a time of strong provincial pressure for an increased focus upon literacy, numeracy, and improvements in standardized test scores in elementary schools in Ontario, Canada. The paper draws upon semi‐structured interviews with 12 principals in one school district to reveal tensions between principals’ support for professional development associated with these provincial emphases, and advocacy for professional development relevant to the specific needs of their school sites. To explore these competing priorities, the paper draws upon Pierre Bourdieu’s concept of the social world as comprising identifiable and contested social ‘fields’, each containing individuals and groups with particular and competing socially‐inscribed dispositions, or ‘habitus’. At the same time, the paper uses principals’ responses to validate and extend normative understandings of ‘leadership habitus’. While provincial pressures are revealed as having a significant impact upon principals’ habitus, an argument is made that the capacity to take local context into account needs to be foregrounded more strongly in current normative conceptions of leadership habitus.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".