MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Leadership éducatif ?

2015· article· fr· W4251235494 on OpenAlexaffabout
Mónica Gather Thurler, Guy Pelletier, Yves Dutercq

Bibliographic record

VenueRecherche & formation · 2015
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducational Practices and Policies
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

À partir d’une synthèse des travaux récents sur le leadership en général et sur le leadership en éducation, en particulier, les auteurs définissent le leadership en tant que processus mutualisé de développement durable, systémique, systématisé et distribué. Ils mettent par ailleurs en exergue l’existence de deux facettes du leadership distribué qui sont étroitement articulées : d’une part, la manière dont l’encadrement statutaire reconnaît et prend en compte le leadership informel qu’exercent les membres du personnel ; d’autre part, la manière dont ce même encadrement statutaire parvient à instaurer une organisation du travail qui valorise le capital professionnel existant, de manière à faire le saut qualitatif indispensable pour atteindre l’objectif visé. Trois analyses proposent des pratiques contrastées d’une recherche de leadership éducatif à la mesure des différences de contextes culturels : leadership comme action située dans le cas de la Suisse italophone, leadership hésitant entre gestion participative et gestion par les résultats au Québec, leadership managérial suscité par la concurrence entre établissements et pouvant dériver vers le pur marketing en France.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.047
Threshold uncertainty score0.158

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.004
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0470.009

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 head0.871
GPT teacher head0.536
Teacher spread0.335 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

Citations15
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRecherche & formationSame topicEducational Practices and PoliciesFrench-language works237,207