The Perceptions of Undergraduate and Graduate Students about Ethical Leadership Behaviors of Academic Staff
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study is to identify how undergraduate and graduate students perceive the ethical leadership behaviors of academic staff. It is also tried to be found out whether dimensions of ethical leadership behavior (communicational ethics, climate ethics, ethics in decision making processes and behavioral ethics) show differences according to the variables of educational level, gender and age of the participant students. The study is in descriptive survey model. The sample is undergraduate and graduate students at Dicle University, Faculty of Education in 2013-2014. As data collection tool “Ethical Leadership Scale (ELS)” developed by Yılmaz (2005) was used. Mean, standard deviation, independent sample t-test and ANOVA test were used to analyze the data. It is concluded that the undergraduate and graduate students’ perceptions of ethical leadership behaviors of academic staff are at mid-level. The means concerning the ethical leadership behaviors of academic staff in terms of behavioral ethics, ethical decision making and communication ethics is 3.01, 3.00 and 2.89 respectively. The lowest mean about the perceptions of undergraduate and graduate students’ about leadership behaviors of academic staff is in climate ethics (2.83).
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".