MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2943781363

Higher Education Leaders Response to Crises

2018· article· en· W2943781363 on OpenAlexaffabout
Glory Ovie

Bibliographic record

Venue2019 Conference of the Canadian Society for the Study of Education · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLeadership, Courage, and Heroism Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNatural disasterHarmPublic relationsPolitical scienceNarrativeFlood mythHistoryGeographyLaw
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Crises occur when core values or vital systems of a community come under threat such as safety and security, welfare and health, integrity, and fairness ( Boin, McConnell, & ???t Hart, 2010). Over the past few years there has been an increase in crises globally from natural disasters to man-made situations such as flood, hurricanes, fires and school shootings. Higher education institutions are not exempt nor immune from these crises. Leaders in higher education will need to become crises leaders, develop competencies to effectively manage, determine risk, get people out of harm???s way, and provide some form of safety and normalcy. This narrative inquiry explored how leaders in an Alberta university responded to man-made and natural crises. Data sources for this study were semi-structured interviews, researcher field texts and documents. The findings, insights, and experiences from this study will be useful in advancing the knowledge base in the field of crisis leadership and response to man-made and natural disasters in higher education. As well as provide a learning tool for current and future educational leaders as they better understand situations that they can prepare for but can never truly predict.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.996
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0080.004
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.133
GPT teacher head0.379
Teacher spread0.246 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue2019 Conference of the Canadian Society for the Study of EducationSame topicLeadership, Courage, and Heroism StudiesFrench-language works237,207