MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2086088770 · doi:10.1177/0829573512461131

Coping With Administrative Constraints by Quebec School Principals

2012· article· en· W2086088770 on OpenAlexaffabout
Emmanuel Poirel, Pierre Lapointe, Frédéric Yvon

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of School Psychology · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducation and Teacher Training
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCoping (psychology)StressorPsychologyWorkloadPaceApplied psychologySocial psychologyClinical psychologyManagement

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The rapid pace of ongoing change in the Quebec education system has had an important impact on the complexity of the job and the workload of school principals. The present study examined the coping strategies used by school principals when facing administrative constraints. The Administrative Stress Index ASI ( N = 238) was used to identify and link the main stressors to the stressful encounters found on video for six principals out of the sample who accepted to be filmed during a working day. Coping strategies were identified in five sequences that met the necessary criteria for the explanatory qualitative analysis. The results show that the main sources of stress come from administrative constraints, and that the principals are not passive but rather try to cope by addressing the constraints they are faced with and by seeking information or support. Principals also have to cope with their emotions and show a lot of self-control. Overall, these findings point to the need for a better understanding of the relationship between stress and coping.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.625
Threshold uncertainty score0.746

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.132
GPT teacher head0.427
Teacher spread0.296 · 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

Citations29
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of School PsychologySame topicEducation and Teacher TrainingFrench-language works237,207