MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2604211937 · doi:10.12806/v16/i2/r6

Designing Academic Leadership Minor Programs: Emerging Models

2017· article· en· W2604211937 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Leadership Education · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHigher Education Learning Practices
Canadian institutionsWilfrid Laurier University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMinor (academic)Variety (cybernetics)Transactional leadershipFlexibility (engineering)CurriculumEducational leadershipLeadership studiesPolitical scienceHarmonizationHigher educationNeuroleadershipProgram Design LanguagePublic relationsLeadership styleServant leadershipManagementSociologyPedagogyComputer scienceEconomicsSoftware engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With a growing number of leadership programs in universities and colleges in North America, leadership educators and researchers are engaged in a wide ranging dialogue to propose clear processes, content, and designs for providing academic leadership education. This research analyzes the curriculum design of 52 institutions offering a “Minor in Leadership” (13 institutions) or a “Minor in Leadership Studies” (39 institutions) in the United States to evaluate their commonalities and differences using the Brungardt, Greenleaf, Brungardt, and Arensdorf (2006) courses classification model. The results show a large variety of curricular designs with emerging trends. While we recognize the need for flexibility and innovation in program design, in this paper we also argue for greater harmonization of academic leadership program designs.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.406
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.004
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.422
GPT teacher head0.466
Teacher spread0.044 · 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