Bibliographic record
Abstract
The study of leadership is gaining popularity as evidenced by the increasing number of leadership development programs in both corporate and academic environments. Therefore, the way that leadership is defined becomes important. Unfortunately, the majority of literature on leadership emphasizes a Eurocentric or Western perspective. This study explored the leadership-related thinking and practices embraced by a First Nations population in Canada: nehiyawak or the Cree people. As the research evolved, the study also ended up exploring both cultural differences with respect to knowledge and knowing and the ethical issues involved with permitting non-native researchers to study native groups. The latter issue arose because of the exploitation that indigenous groups have experienced when working with mainstream-culture researchers in the past. The proposal for the study indicated that the study would be built around qualitative interviewing, participant observation, and the largely inductive, coding-based analysis process commonly used in qualitative research. These pre-defined strategies were modified during the course of the study to ensure that the research was a collaborative effort between the Western researcher and the First Nations group that agreed to participate in the study. Procedures also were intentionally modified to reflect the recommendations of an emerging literature on indigenous methodology. Group members were familiar with this literature and viewed the methods described in it as strategies for reclaiming their group's traditional ways of knowing. The study revealed that the Indigenous nation that participated in the study is in a process of resistance, self determination and healing from the wounds of genocide. The study also demonstrated that the Western tendency to associate leadership with hierarchy and positional power is radically different than the relational and interconnection-oriented view of leadership that is traditional in Cree culture. Even more contemporary Western literature that emphasizes collaboration and a more relational view of leadership differs, in significant ways, from Cree ways of leadership which encompass an alignment of one's mind, spirit, and body, as well as the regular engagement in ceremony.
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 | 0.015 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.044 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".