Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Healthy and adaptive strategies for regulating emotions and coping with the demands of their jobs can help school-level leaders mitigate the factors and forces heightening the emotional aspects of their work, stave off the negative effects of work intensification and achieve wellness. As with most individuals in most professions, school-level leaders use several different strategies to manage their emotions and cope with the stresses associated with their work. Some of these coping strategies are associated with positive outcomes including situation selection and exercising autonomy over their workday, talking to colleagues, reappraisal, humour, controlled breathing, exercise and engaging in hobbies outside of work. However, even the most experienced and effective school-level leaders demonstrate a proclivity for engaging in coping strategies associated with maladaptive and negative outcomes. These maladaptive strategies include worrying about events over which they have little or no control, masking one's emotions using expressive suppression, using thought suppression to deal with symptoms of emotional exhaustion, distraction, manipulating the emotions of others as well as use of illegal or prescription drugs, alcohol and other forms of self-medication. This chapter concludes with a discussion of how there can be some overlap between these strategies in practice and how they are classified.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.010 |
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".