PERMANENCY OF LEADER SELF-CONFIDENCE DEVELOPMENT: A LONGITUDINAL COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to determine if youths’ leader self-confidence, once developed in a leadership training program, persisted over time. It is exploratory comparative analysis research comparing two studies on the same leadership training program: Benson (1991) and the Canadian Alberta Provincial Government (1995). Benson’s (1991) study assessed youths’ self-confidence 3 months after they attended the provincial leadership training program. The Alberta Provincial Government (1995) study assessed youths’ and adults’ self-confidence 1 to 8 years after they attended the same provincial leadership training program. Although this is not a true longitudinal study following the same subjects over time; it is a follow-up study measuring the impact of the provincial leadership training program on the permanency of self-confidence development and retention over time. This is one of the few leadership studies on self-efficacy and self-confidence to do this. This exploratory study will do an in-depth comparative analysis of Benson and Enstroem’s (2014) Leader Self-Confidence Indicator (LSCI) 4 dimensions. Specifically, both studies (Benson, 1991 and the Alberta Provincial Government, 1995) and both data sets of both quantitative and qualitative data within those two studies will be analyzed to find out if participants increased their leadership self-confidence in any of the 4 dimensions and retained self-confidence overtime.
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 | 0.012 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".