Communication in educational leadership in Canada: a qualitative case study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Communication plays a vital role in the success of any organization, including institutions \nof higher learning. Ineffective communication can hinder the growth of institutions and \norganizations. The sender of an information must ensure the receiver gets the information \nwithout distortion. The communication process is incomplete without feedback. \nAdministrators in higher learning institutions must communicate effectively if they want \nto achieve their goals and objectives. Though communication can be said to be \nsynonymous with effective leadership, the literature reveals little research on this topic in \na university setting. This study examined the communication process between senior \nadministrators and faculty members in one university in Ontario Canada. Semi structured \ninterviews were used to gather data from senior administrators and faculty members. \nFindings revealed channels of communication used and preferred by both administrators \nand faculty. Some of these channels included emails and face to face interactions. Though \nemail was the most used channel of communication in this case study, both participants \npreferred face to face interactions such as meetings. This was preferred because it allows \ncommunicators to give live feedback interpreted through body language and facial \nexpressions.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".