Leadership effectiveness and the problem of social action: Continuing the conversation between Burns and Rost
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
While calling for the need to continue engaging in conversation with differing understandings of leadership effectiveness, the author demonstrates what this could look like in practice by conversing with three leadership authors, Hannah Arendt, from the field of Political Theory, James McGregor Burns from the disciplines of Political Science and American History, and Joseph C Rost, from the field of Education Administration/Leadership. In this article, the author seeks to understand differing and contradictory notions of leadership effectiveness as they are proposed by Burns and Rost. Following Arendt, the author (a) distinguishes the nature of action as understood by Burns (acting as making) and Rost (acting as initiating), (b) outlines the dominant influence of ‘acting as making’ or homo-faber image of leadership within the discipline of leadership studies, and (c) considers the implications of including ‘acting as initiating’ for leadership learning and education.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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