MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2300529716 · doi:10.26522/brocked.v24i2.429

Listening to Voices at the Educational Frontline: New Administrators’ Experiences of the Transition from Teacher to Vice-principal

2015· article· en· W2300529716 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Denise E. Armstrong

Bibliographic record

VenueBrock Education Journal · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicTeacher Education and Leadership Studies
Canadian institutionsBrock University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsActive listeningPrincipal (computer security)Transition (genetics)Vice presidentPsychologyFront lineQualitative researchEducational leadershipKey (lock)PedagogyPublic relationsSociologyPolitical scienceManagementComputer scienceCommunication

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This qualitative study examined the transition from teaching to administration through the voices four novice vice-principals. An integrative approach was used to capture the interaction between new vice-principals, their external contexts, and the resulting leadership outcomes. The data revealed that in spite of these new administrators’ intention to create better schools for all students, they encountered multiple factors that hindered their ability to achieve their leadership goals. Key obstacles included the ambiguous legal and institutional configuration of the vice-principalship, inadequate preparation for challenging front line managerial and disciplinary roles, and inappropriate transitional support. Through listening to new vice-principals voices and providing relevant preparation and coordinated supports, school districts and policy makers can improve this transition and address some of the leadership challenges facing schools.

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.021
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: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.062

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0140.014
Scholarly communication0.0080.005
Open science0.0020.006
Research integrity0.0020.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.095
GPT teacher head0.392
Teacher spread0.298 · 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

Citations24
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBrock Education JournalSame topicTeacher Education and Leadership StudiesFrench-language works237,207