Social Justice Leadership—Theory and Practice: A Case of Ontario
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: This study is to investigate how principals promote social justice to redress marginalization, inequity, and divisive action that are prevalent in schools. Research Method: This study employs a qualitative research design with semistructured interviews. Twenty-two elementary and secondary school principals were interviewed in the Greater Toronto Area, Ontario, Canada. Research Findings: Principals who are social justice advocates exercise their influence by focusing on people in an effort to build a socially just community. Their people-centered leadership practice focuses on: putting students at the center, positioning as a social justice leader, developing people for social justice, building school climate through social justice, and fostering positive relationships with families and communities. Social justice leadership is grounded in a very proactive way in bringing about the changes that such a paradigm demands. Implications: This study generates discussions among participants on the dynamics associated with social justice practice and helps practitioners navigate tactically entrenched power structures for the well-being of their students. It also deepens our understanding of social justice leadership by providing empirical evidence how social justice advocates take risks and innovative approaches to social change that embraces the value of democracy, inclusion, representation, and difference.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it