Change Management in Public High Schools in Jordan, Based on Administrative Innovation principles from the Schools' Principals' Point of View
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The study aimed to identify the actuality of change management within secondary schools in Jordan based on the administrations innovative principles. Where the members of the study consisted of (275) public secondary schools principals of both genders, which were chosen randomly. The descriptive approach has been used since it suits the purpose of study, the study found that the level of administrative innovative principles among public high schools principals were low in its four dimensions (originality, fluency, flexibility and sensitivity to problems).There were statistically significant differences at the level of significance (0.05) in administrative innovation principles related to applying the element of originality with regard to gender, The results showed that there were no statistically significant differences at the level of significance (0.05) in the principles of administrative creativity with its four dimensions attributed to scientific qualification, while it showed that there were statistically significant differences at the level of significance (0.05) in the level of sensitivity to the problems attributed to the experience, The researcher recommended the need for change in the management of public secondary schools in Jordan, based on the principles of administrative innovation.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".