Leadership and Social Transformation: The Role of Marginalized Individuals and Groups
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Leadership is a process of influence, an omnipresent feature of human societies, and an enduring focus of research and popular interest. Research tends to focus on individual and situational factors facilitating effective leadership and identifying obstacles to leadership. One key obstacle many leaders face it being stigmatized as an outsider who is not suited to leadership. This article and issue of the Journal of Social Issues focuses on how and when people can overcome these obstacles to leadership–the emergence of marginalized, deviant, or minority group members as leaders even when their success is unexpected. This article and issue discuss the challenges these leaders face and identifies conditions under which such leaders can exert influence to achieve social change. We cover various forms of marginal leadership, focusing on leaders who are marginal individuals (e.g., non‐prototypical leaders), who belong to marginal minority subgroups (e.g., leaders from numerical minority groups), or who have marginal demographic status (e.g., female leaders). This article introduces and frames the subsequent articles in this issue of the Journal of Social Issues, on the psychology of being a marginal leader.
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 | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".