Impact of a Leadership Development Institute on Professional Lives and Careers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An evaluation study was conducted to determine the impact of a leadership institute, The Dorothy Wylie Health Leaders Institute (DWHLI), over the decade since its inception. The aim was to better understand the perceived influence of the Institute over time on professional lives and careers of alumni and identify the critical design features that supported leadership development. Nurses and other health disciplines from all levels of leadership and from most provinces completed an online survey (n = 165) and a subset was interviewed (n = 33). The majority of alumni (50-68%) rated the impact of the Institute as significant or very significant on seven of the eight selected intended leadership outcomes. For 73-78% of the alumni, the Institute had a recurring or profound positive impact on their professional lives as leaders and personal careers. Alumni who reported the greatest impact of the program on their knowledge, skills and confidence as leaders also had higher levels of career satisfaction and work engagement. Design elements that impacted their development included the theoretical and conceptual content, interactive and experiential structure and mentoring. Recommendations for organizational sponsors included the need for opportunities to apply learning, ongoing coaching, mentoring and career counseling specific to their leadership career path.
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 | 0.012 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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".