Principals’ Work in Ontario, Canada: Changing Demographics, Advancements in Information Communication Technology and Health and Wellbeing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Contemporary agendas of high-stakes accountability initiatives, national and international competitiveness drives, and standardized curriculum policies have significantly influenced the work of principals. This article explores how these changes influence the work of Ontario principals in English-speaking public schools. We know the changing nature of principals’ work, as compared to the work of teachers, has not been as well represented in the literature and research. Over the last two decades in Ontario, school principals have had to deal with sweeping reform measures that have re-engineered and reconfgured the educational terrain of school administration and leadership. This article takes a broad approach to understanding what contemporary principals do. Among other things, it acknowledges the wide-ranging, diverse and complex nature of what principals do. Most importantly, it adopts the concept of ‘work’ to explore principals’ worlds. While the study in this article utilized a mixed-methods approach using interviews and school site observations, findings reported in this article come from the principal interviews only. This article focuses specifically on changing student demographics, information and communication technology, and health and wellbeing
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".