Community Belonging and Values-Based Leadership as the Antidote to Bullying and Incivility
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article examines the role of community as an antidote to bullying and incivility. The question we ask our readers to consider is: Does cultivating a culture of belonging for all acknowledge a most basic human need that members of organizations seek to meet during their day-to-day work lives? Belonging can serve as an antidote to feeling othered, which sows the seeds of separateness, isolation, absence of community, bullying, and incivility. Examples of othering behavior operate along a continuum that normalizes bullying, incivility and can escalate to include racism, sexism, classism, and a range of other non-inclusive behaviors. This conceptual article draws on our collective experience as educators in leadership. With humility, we rely on our efforts to amplify values-based leadership, community belonging, and ways of knowing from long ago wisdom. We seek to cultivate communities of belonging among leaders in education and ultimately in organizations and communities that exist beyond the classroom. We advocate belonging as an antidote to othering behaviors that can include bullying and incivility and draw on literature to support our approach.
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 | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.030 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".