MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4221086989 · doi:10.3390/educsci12030219

Characteristics of the Authority Basis of Icelandic Compulsory School Principals in Comparison to Other TALIS Countries

2022· article· en· W4221086989 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ragnar F. Ólafsson, Börkur Hansen

Bibliographic record

VenueEducation Sciences · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicTeacher Education and Leadership Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIcelandicHofstede's cultural dimensions theoryContext (archaeology)CurriculumIndividualismSociologyPolitical sciencePublic relationsPedagogySocial scienceLawGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this paper is to explore the authority basis of compulsory school principals in Iceland by making a general comparison to the other participating countries in the OECD Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS) 2018, as well as by using Hofstede’s cultural dimensions theory. The study utilizes data from principals in 48 of the countries that participated in the TALIS 2018. The authority bases of the principals and of the other governing agents are explored with regard to the key task areas, which range from managerial to curriculum tasks. The authority basis of the principals and the other agents in Iceland has commonalities with most of the other Nordic countries, as well as with Baltic countries, Anglophone countries (except for Canada (Alberta)), and with many Eastern European countries. On the basis of Hofstede’s cultural dimensions model, Iceland is “individualist”, with a low “power distance”, and it allocates more responsibility to the principals and to the other school agents at the school level than it does to the authorities. The major implication of this study for the Icelandic context is the need to enhance and strengthen the role of the school boards in terms of the professional support for principals.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.169
Threshold uncertainty score0.934

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.153
GPT teacher head0.438
Teacher spread0.286 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations4
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEducation SciencesSame topicTeacher Education and Leadership StudiesFrench-language works237,207