First Conversations With Manitoba Superintendents: Talking Their Walk
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Thirty-seven superintendents lead public school divisions in the Province of Manitoba; their role is to implement the policies set out by the Board of Trustees. In a period of rapid educational change and growth in Manitoba, superintendents are increasingly concerned with rural/urban issues; the fallout from recent school division amalgamations; and local/global educational perspectives. The leadership style demonstrated by superintendents is crucial to their ability to respond appropriately and adequately to growing issues of cultural, economic, social, and community influences. This article describes a study of Manitoba superintendents and their perspectives on their leadership style. Their narrative are analyzed through the lens of servant-leadership as defined by Robert K. Greenleaf and an inventory of 10 related characteristics: listening, empathy, healing, awareness, persuasion, foresight, conceptualization, stewardship, commitment to the growth of people, and building community. It appears that this small sample of superintendents regard awareness, foresight, conceptualization, commitment to the growth of others, and building community as priorities in their leadership modus operandi.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.045 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
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".