Principal Procurement Policy Analysis in Achieving School Management Excellence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research of principal procurement policy focuses on organizing Principal Leadership Preparation Program (in Bahasa Indonesia is abbreviated as PPCKS) activities with participants coming from public elementary school teachers and state junior high school teachers. The research method is qualitative using case study approach with purposeful sampling. The implementation strategy of data collection through validity test, followed by triangulation of data in the form of interview, documentation study and observation. Data analysis used is data reduction, data presentation and data verification. The results of this study illustrate that: 1) the issue of education policy in the school principal procurement sometimes raises the dualism of interests normatively and politically; 2) the implementation of school principal procurement policy through PPCKS shown that it seems the committee from Educational Office element only role in the recruitment only, beyond that all controlled by LPPKS and Educational Office only did the monitoring; 3) most principals do not have PPCKS follow-up programs. Each principal should have a program and strategy in preparing candidates for the principal to be able to produce an effective principal.
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 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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".