Bibliographic record
Abstract
Extract Why read this book? To inform the decision every potential reader must make about whether to invest time in reading it and, if so, in what depth, we capture here what we see as our significant contribution to knowledge—an explanatory answer to part of a topical question for the study of public service change: what role does the development of leadership capacity play in public service reform? Contribution. The aspect of this question that we address is the role of major leadership development interventions in facilitating the implementation of regulated marketization reforms and, in recent years, austerity measures for public services. We develop a critical explanation of the foundational contribution that national leadership development interventions, mounted around two decades ago in England, have made to the emergence, proliferation, and normalization of leadership development provision for public services. Our account is based on findings from large-scale qualitative research on three national leadership development interventions: for school education, healthcare, and higher education. We examine the contemporary legacy of these interventions within the burgeoning international movement to develop senior staff in public service organizations as leaders, illustratively comparing interventions for our three focal service sectors in five Anglophone countries: the USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and England. We reflect on the diffuse impact of the foundational interventions and their legacy in England for the regulated marketization of public services and their contribution to wider social change, and point towards promising starting-points for rethinking developmental support for the coordinated effort that public service provision entails.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.680 | 0.522 |
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".