MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2806230198 · doi:10.12724/ajss.21.5

Ethical Leadership Behaviour of Principals in Relation to Organizational Commitment of BEd College Teachers

2012· article· en· W2806230198 on OpenAlexaff
Savita Puri

Bibliographic record

VenueArtha - Journal of Social Sciences · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicOrganizational Leadership and Management Strategies
Canadian institutionsHorizon College and Seminary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStratified samplingPsychologyOrganizational commitmentEthical leadershipTest (biology)Social psychologyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The present study is an attempt to investigate the ethical leadership behaviour of principals in relation to organizational commitment of BEd college teachers. A sample of 200 BEd College teachers was selected by stratified random sampling technique. Due representation was given to male and female teachers and type of management namely private aided and private unaided colleges. Appropriate tools were administered and the data collected was analyzed by using’-test and co-efficient of co- relation. It was found that there was a significant positive correlation between ethical leadership behaviour of college principals and organizational commitment of BEd college teachers also revealed that teachers working under principals with high and moderate ethical leadership behaviour had higher levels of commitment than teachers working under principals with low ethical behaviour. Teachers working in private aided colleges, teachers on permanent basis and more experienced teachers had higher levels of organizational commitment. The study implies the need for principals to practice ethical behaviour.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.094
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.212 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArtha - Journal of Social SciencesSame topicOrganizational Leadership and Management StrategiesFrench-language works237,207