Cases Inquiry as Critical Praxis: Supporting Intersectionality Within Inclusive Leadership Practices
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article illuminates the significance of exploring intersectionalities within inclusive leadership practices through case inquiry as a critical praxis. Five educational institutions engaged in a partnership focused on exploring the lived practices and professional knowledge of school leaders as they worked towards supporting a vision of inclusive education within their individual school communities. These lived experiences were represented in written cases that have been captured in a provincial resource, Exploring Inclusive Leadership Practices through Case Inquiry (Sider, Maich, Morvan, Specht, & Smith, 2018). Mobilizing the knowledge and practices within this resource and supporting exploration of this knowledge and associated practices through a lens of critical praxis has been one of the key knowledge mobilization components of the June 1, 2019 conference, Exploring Intersectionalities for Leadership and School Inclusion, held at the University of British Columbia. This knowledge mobilization event, along with other initiatives, such as the case resource, helped to foster critical dialogue and interrogation related to leadership practices that can support or hinder a vision and enactment of inclusive education within school communities.
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 | 0.128 | 0.158 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.025 | 0.085 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.034 | 0.041 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.042 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.002 |
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".