MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3021083337 · doi:10.11575/prism/37631

The Influence of Leadership on Innovation in Alberta Charter Schools: A Qualitative Case Study

2020· dissertation· en· W3021083337 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Melanie Guglielmin

Bibliographic record

VenuePRISM (University of Calgary) · 2020
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducation Systems and Policy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCharterCharter schoolPolitical scienceQualitative researchEducational leadershipLeadership studiesPublic administrationManagementLeadership styleSociologyPublic relationsSocial scienceEconomicsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study used a qualitative, instrumental, multisite case study design to examine the leadership practices of principals of three charter schools in Alberta with significantly different mandates in order to determine how they inspired innovation among their staff. Leadership practices were examined through semistructured interviews with each principal and a member of their teaching staff. Additionally, observations of the physical layout of the interior and exterior of the school were conducted in order to understand the physical context of each school and examination of extant documentation such as websites, school charter documents, calendars, and blogs was completed. These interviews and observations formed the basis of a narrative exploration of the innovative practices at each school and the leadership practices that appeared to support and encourage them. Several themes developed as a result of this research, including relationships built on trust, leaders acting as servants, establishing and communicating a clear vision, distribution of leadership, and creating a culture of innovation. These themes enabled a discussion of the three key research questions focusing on leadership practices, personal creativity, and establishment of a definition of what practices might be seen as innovative. Finally, the conclusion discusses potential steps that leaders and government may take in order to increase and support innovative practices in schools.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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 score0.598
Threshold uncertainty score0.799

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0220.012
Scholarly communication0.0040.001
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.079
GPT teacher head0.361
Teacher spread0.282 · 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
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePRISM (University of Calgary)→Same topicEducation Systems and Policy→French-language works237,207→