Reflection of Education Administrators’ Ethical Values on Organizational Culture: Case of Plato and Kant
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to reveal the views of administrators on the assessment of education administrators within the context of ethical values and their reflection on organizational culture. Ten administrators who were determined using convenience sampling which is one of purposeful sampling methods, participated in the study which was conducted using qualitative research method. Qualitative research technique was used in the research and it is used in one of the qualitative research designs, phenomenological design. Considering in terms of education administration; ethical rules to be possessed by today’s school administrators were tried to be revealed on the basis of key concepts such as Plato’s “wisdom, courage, moderation and justice” concepts and Kant’s “duty, principle, will power, liability, law and rule” concepts according to his deontological theory, in accordance with the results acquired during the interview based on the application. According to the results of the research, it is possible to say that Plato's four key concepts of “Wisdom, bravery (courage), measure and justice.” Are adopted more by school administrators. It is seen that the virtues of flour are generally adopted but in practice, Kant's Deontological theory is put into practice. In addition, it is considered that every step in the direct management of the characteristics of the school administrator and the effects of the administrator in the ethical context directly affect the organizational climate.
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 | 0.026 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.048 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".