Innovations in Leadership Development: Centering Communities of Color
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With innovative funding from a large local foundation, communities of color in Portland, Oregon developed an array of leadership programs to serve communities of color. This article shares the models they developed, including overviews of curriculum, theories of change, and concrete evidence-based gains achieved by the programs. Innovations include a leadership model that is rooted in community leadership, and the emergence of community priorities to guide the programs, alongside culturally-specific programs that are effective in reaching and supporting the participation of emerging and existing leaders of color. Community priorities included advocacy engagement that resulted in achieving real gains during the yearlong program, and preparing leaders to engage in racial equity work in public and institutional policy after graduation. Highlighted are the distinct assets of culturally specific programs that were perceived to be responsible for achieving significant gains. Conclusions emphasize the importance of culturally specific leadership programs for reaching and centering leaders of color and the ways that such investments hold potential to lead equity efforts in the community and in organizations. Avenues for strengthening programs and their evaluation conclude the article.
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 | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".