Bibliographic record
Abstract
in Australia, 202 context and mission of, 206-209 Catholic Education, Diocese of Wagga Wagga (CEDWW), xxviii, 180, 182, 234 Central Office Staff, 185-186 need for, 187 principals and assistant principals, 186 system improvement initiative, 194 Catholic Education Diocese of Wilcannia Forbes, 187 Catholic Religious Australia (CRA), 203 Catholic schools, 206-208 Catholicism, xxix CEDWW Workforce Capability Framework (CWCF), 190-191 China, cultural and contextual antecedents for system leadership in, 91-93 Chinese educational reforms, 226 Classroom conditions, 138-140 relative effects, 141-142 Co-curricular activities (CCA), 112 Co-responsibility, 212, 232 Coherence, 16-17 Collaboration, 16-17 Collaborative leadership, 18 Collective capacity-building for quality improvement, 62-64 quality strategy based on, 66-69 Collective leadership, 18 Commission contract, 94 Commissioned administration networks, 94-95 Commonwealth Education Act (2013), 207 Communities of practice, 122 Community-based learning, 25 Compliant engagement, 21 INDEX
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.747 | 0.767 |
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".