Generation X Global City Leaders: An emerging process for examining leadership experience in multi-national, multi-layer comparative perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The merits of international comparative studies of educational leadership have been well established. However, academic reflection on the pragmatics of conducting management research across different jurisdictions remains sparse. Addressing the growing demand for explicit discussions of the practice and methods of comparative educational leadership research, this paper adopts Teagarden's ( More specifically, the paper provides a detailed reflection on how the research has addressed the first two elements of Teagarden's model: forming research consortia and designing the research. The paper draws on an on-going study of Generation X, under 40-year-old, school leaders in London, New York City and Toronto to examine strategies for establishing and working with Advisory Groups and designing contextually reflective research strategies.
Stored with the screening record, where it is evidence for the labels above.
How this classification was reachedexpand
The three-model screen
all 5,600 screened works →All three models called this metaresearch. It is in the settled core of the field.
Methodological reflection on how to conduct multi-jurisdiction comparative leadership research: forming research consortia, designing the study, working with advisory groups; the object is research practice itself.
The primary object is the practice and methods of conducting comparative educational leadership research.
Primary object is methods and pragmatics of conducting comparative educational leadership research across jurisdictions.
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 | 0.019 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".