MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3135924481 · doi:10.51357/jdll.v1i1.113

Leadership in Education During COVID-19: Learning and Growing Through a Crisis

2021· article· en· W3135924481 on OpenAlexaff
Lindy Hudson, Seshaanth Mahendrarajah, Martina Walton, Michael James Pascaris, Sonya Melim, Robyn Ruttenberg-Rozen

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Digital Life and Learning · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCOVID-19 and Mental Health
Canadian institutionsOntario Tech University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAgency (philosophy)Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)PandemicReflexivityExperiential learningEducational leadershipAutoethnographyPedagogyTransformative learningHigher education2019-20 coronavirus outbreakSociologyAnxietyPolitical sciencePsychologyPublic relationsSocial scienceMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article explores themes resulting from a group autoethnography conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic. As participants, we are education graduate students and a professor working in both formal and informal leadership roles. We met twice a week to reflect on our present experiences implementing and leading distance education during the COVID-19 pandemic and to use these reflections to (re) imagine the future alignment of technology and education. Our self-reflexive discussions uncovered common experiential themes around educator agency, technology-induced anxiety, and leadership agency. We highlight our own growth through reflection, and we suggest important leadership qualities during times of pandemics that will raise the level of motivation and engagement of school communities and have the potential to create a stronger individual and institutional sense of agency and resiliency during a time of crisis.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
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 score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.037

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0130.016
Scholarly communication0.0070.005
Open science0.0010.010
Research integrity0.0030.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.124
GPT teacher head0.406
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

Citations9
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Digital Life and LearningSame topicCOVID-19 and Mental HealthFrench-language works237,207