MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2246546832

Knowledge mobilization on decision making for school improvement : Canadian principals learning network.

2012· article· en· W2246546832 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Marielle Simon, Stephanie Chitpin, Angus McMurtrie, Peter P. Grimmett, Karen Starr, Jeff Orr, Brennan Trainor

Bibliographic record

VenueDeakin Research Online (Deakin University) · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicEducational Assessment and Improvement
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVariety (cybernetics)CurriculumSupervisorFace (sociological concept)Political sciencePublic relationsPedagogyInstructional leadershipPsychologyEducational leadershipSociologyComputer science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

\n\t\t\t\t\tPrincipals duties have expanded beyond instructional leadership. Roles now include being curriculum leader, supervisor, manager, head of finance, administration, compliance, and legal matters, and so on. These additional responsibilities impact their decision-making in relation to teaching, learning and school improvement in general. How, and on what basis, they make these decisions is crucial both to their development as instructional leaders and to educational reform processes. To contribute to knowledge on principals’ decision making skills, we have created a strategic knowledge mobilization initiative called 'Canadian Principals Learning Network (CPLN)'. Through a variety of face-to-face and online activities, it collaboratively links together an international group of practicing principals and university-based researchers with related expertise. This paper describes the initiative and outcomes.\n\t\t\t\t

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.962
Threshold uncertainty score0.535

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0090.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.001

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 head0.250
GPT teacher head0.495
Teacher spread0.246 · 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

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDeakin Research Online (Deakin University)Same topicEducational Assessment and ImprovementFrench-language works237,207