Democratic school leadership in Canada's public school systems: professional value and social ethic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Democratic leadership processes are desirable for schools not only because they reflect socially mandated ethical commitments to collective process. They can be professionally justified as a necessary approach to leading schools effectively in the increasingly culturally diverse communities and a world transformed by the effects of technology and the forces of globalization. Rational professional justifications for democratic leadership in schools include the nature of the school leadership role, the social contexts of the communities, as well as an ideological social mandate. A body of existing theory and research is used to illustrate that rational processes prevail as the primary influences on decision‐making by educational leaders. The appropriateness of rationalized democratic processes for schools is demonstrated by discussing the findings of recently completed research on school‐based interactions between school principals and parent advocates engaged in negotiating the educational needs of students with exceptionalities. Parent advocates were found to intentionally use democratic process to promote value confrontations and conflicts as a deliberate strategy aimed at transforming attitudes and practices in school administration specific to special education processes.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.044 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".