Exploring a Hybrid Leadership Model in Higher Education Institutions in Times of Crisis
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This chapter presents a case for the adaptation of a hybrid model of leadership for mid-level executives in higher education institutions (HEIs) during times of crises. The authors propose the ACT framework, which is the hybridization of adaptive, collaborative, and transformative leadership theories, as a suitable model for HEIs' mid-level executives to use during times of crises. First, the authors explore the tenets of the theories and their application. Second, they examine their appropriateness for use by mid-level executives and ultimately propose a hybrid model. To illustrate the merits and potential of the model, the authors analyzed two cases to highlight the benefits of applying this model. The ACT framework benefits these leaders through crisis management training that facilitates capacity building in the formulation of equitable solutions, collaboration, and agility in responding to complex adaptive, wicked problems. The authors present the ACT framework as a suitable option for solving crises in HEIs through case studies.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it