A Systematic Review of Digital Academic Leadership in Higher Education
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
Digital academic leadership (DAL) in higher education has been recognised as an important aspect in the enhancement of academic development in the stage of new normal and the academic achievement of academic members and learners across higher education contexts. DAL is seen as leadership that integrates the portfolio of technologies and instruments such as e-platforms (webinars) and social media in academic settings. A systematic literature review was employed in this study to map the relevant literature on the topics of 1) what is DAL? 2) what are the core dimensions of digital academic leadership? The source database includes 39 English articles related to the topics of DAL published between January 2003 and June 2023 in high-indexed journals. This review provides theoretical-conceptual and empirical contributions to the DAL literature. This study synthesises the related theories and conceptual frameworks for elucidating the concept of DAL. The results imply the need and how to enhance DAL in higher education contexts.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 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 it