Bringing Relationships out of the Shadows: Relationship Building as a Foundational Social Resource and Mediator of Context
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Leithwood (2017) outlines personal leadership resources (PLR) and Leithwood et al. (2019) claimed these resources can account for a great deal of variation in school leadership practice.  In addition, these leadership resources are recognized in several documents related to leadership standards.  Although other leadership resources exist, Leithwood (2017) and Leithwood et al. (2019) claim that the PLRs in these documents are included because there is significant evidence to warrant their inclusion. This article, however, provides evidence that the list of personal leadership resources required for successful leadership is incomplete, and neglects to recognize the importance of the ability to build relationships.  Moreover, this article attempts to further the argument forwarded by Hoogsteen (2020) that personal leadership resources mediate context and leadership practice, and this is accomplished only through the construction and maintenance of productive relationships with school staff, district personnel, and the community at large.  
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 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 | 0.018 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".