Guidelines for Enhancing Ethical Leadership in the 21st century for School Administrators Under the Sukhothai Primary Educational Service Area Office, Area 2
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aims of this research are to 1) study the conditions for fostering ethical leadership in the 21st century among school administrators. Under the jurisdiction of the Sukhothai Primary Educational Service Area Office, Area 2, Thailand, and 2) propose guidelines for strengthening ethical leadership in the 21st century of educational institution administrators. Under the Sukhothai Primary Educational Service Area Office, Area 2, Thailand, this is descriptive research. The group of informants in the research were nine school administrators using purposive sampling. The research instrument was a semi-structured interview form. Data were analysed using content analysis. The research results found that. 1) Conditions for enhancing ethical leadership in the 21st century among educational institution administrators. Under the jurisdiction of the Sukhothai Primary Educational Service Area Office 2, Thailand, it was found that the conditions for fostering ethical leadership in the 21st century among school administrators have 6 elements, consisting of 1) justice, 2) honesty, 3) respect for others. Other 4) Responsibility 5) Kindness 6) Self-control. 2) Guidelines for enhancing ethical leadership in the 21st century among school administrators. Under the jurisdiction of the Sukhothai Primary Educational Service Area Office, Area 2, Thailand, it was found that there should be guidelines for strengthening for educational institution administrators. By applying the principles of good governance Adhere to the principles of morality, ethics, adhere to the principles of democracy. Use the rule of law in complying with various laws and regulations with transparency. Honest Can be checked transparently Adhere to the principles of participation Respect others Be responsible in your duties Know how to control yourself Limited resources are used efficiently. Set a good example in working so that work is efficient and effective.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".