Using PR strategies to enhance public relations in state secondary schools
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research study sets out to examine the nature of communication between secondary schools and their publics, or stakeholders. Why is it that multi-million pound organisations (for such are the locally-held budgets of schools) are so reticent about sharing their successes and achievements? Why, when faced with crisis situations, do schools all too often close ranks and school gates, so that suspicion and doubt - rather than clarity and understanding - are fostered? \n \nIt is a field of study to which little attention has been paid by public relations professionals or academics outside of the inner London area, except in relation to crisis management issues, which will be examined here. \n \nThe aims of this study are: \n \n1. To examine the nature of communications between school managers and stakeholders \n2. To analyse attitudes among school managers about their relationship with various stakeholders \n3. To evaluate the development of a network of local schools willing to try and implement PR practices with the help of final year media students. \n \nThe intended outcome is to persuade secondary schools generally that an open and transparent relationship with the media and other external publics will work to their benefit. \n \nIt is based on initial research carried out at Calder High School in Mytholmroyd, and subsequently with a network of secondary schools, mostly in West Yorkshire, for whom undergraduates studying Public Relations have been conducting communications audits under my supervision. \n \nIt also aims to foster beneficial relationships between the University of Huddersfield and local “feeder” secondary schools and, it is hoped, to enable further study in this field with a view to creating a centre of excellence in this field at the University’s department of journalism and media.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.029 | 0.004 |
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".