The Structural Relationship Model of Indicators of Mindful Leadership for Primary School Principals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study is a descriptive research study aiming to: 1) test the fitness between the theoretical model of the mindful leadership indicators and empirical data and 2) investigate factor loading value of the main elements, sub-elements, and indicators with models. The population of the research is 27,718 primary school principals under the office of the Basic Education Commission. Data collection means was rating-scale questionnaire from 610 participants in the sample group selected randomly by a multi-stage sampling technique. The data was analysed using a computer program. The results of the research confirmed the hypotheses of the research which are: the theoretical model is relevant to the empirical data, and the value of Relative Chi-Square (CMIN/DF), Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA), Goodness-of-Fit Index (GFI), Adjusted Goodness-of-Fit Index (AGFI), Comparative Fit Index (CFI), and (6) Normed Fit Index (NFI) is in accordance with the criteria and 2) the value of factor loading of the main elements is between 0.84 – 1.70 which is 0.70 higher than the criteria, the value of factor loading of the sub-elements is between 0.31 – 1.95, and the value of the factor loading of the indicators is between 0.30 – 8.26 which is 0.30 higher than the criteria.
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 | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".