Administrative Communications Among School Leaders and Special Education Teachers During COVID-19
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
The chapter explored administrative communications from schools, divisions, and the province as perceived by special education teachers in Saskatchewan, Canada during school closures. Through one-on-one online interviews and a thematic analysis, the present study investigated how and how often school leaders communicated with school staff, and what they communicated about, as well as what special education teachers were concerned about regarding administrative communications across the board. Most staff meetings were held virtually on a weekly basis with one exception: meetings were held infrequently at one federal school. Teachers felt that these meetings helped facilitate the discussions among teachers and school leaders about online teaching and learning. Ineffective communications between administration at different levels was a concern for teachers because some communications were delayed and insensitive to the needs of students and their families as well as teachers. Finally, educational implications for crisis leadership were also discussed in this chapter.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it