MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2198330238 · doi:10.26522/tl.v3i2.41

Leadership and Innovation in Schools

2006· article· en· W2198330238 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jack Henry Dixon, Raymond Chodzinski

Bibliographic record

VenueTeaching and Learning · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicDiverse Educational Innovations Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPrincipal (computer security)Educational leadershipPedagogySociologyManagementPolitical sciencePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

I first met Jack Dixon more than thirty-five years ago. He was a teacher in the Hasting County School Board. Over the years I have come to know him as an energetic, dynamic, creative individual who is forever extremely pleasant and collegial. During his career he sponsored many innovate leadership initiatives and has influenced the shape of education in Hasting County and the Province. His career in education is varied. He has served as a teacher, consultant, counselor, vice-principal and principal in schools and taught at Brock University and now Loyalist College. Much of his career has been devoted to the development and application of innovation in schools particularly new programs that further the boundaries of how education services are delivered within the institutional setting. If I were to provide Jack with a motto it would be that there are no boundaries only challenges. We met for a day and I interviewed Jack about his thoughts on leadership in schools. What he had to say could very easily become a book on leadership in education and in the community at large. What follows is my summary of aspects of that interview.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.056

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0090.015
Scholarly communication0.0110.005
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.071
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.202 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTeaching and LearningSame topicDiverse Educational Innovations StudiesFrench-language works237,207