The Development of Inspirational Leadership Indicators of School Administrators under the Office of the Basic Education Commission in the Northeast
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research aims to develop indicators of inspirational leadership among the school administrators. The research is divided into 3 phases: Phase 1: develop indicators of inspirational leadership among the directors. The draft behavioral indicators were presented 7 experts to check their appropriateness and feasibility. Phase 2 examined the consistency of the model. Structural indicators of inspirational leadership of school administrators developed with Empirical data by asking 570 school administrators, which were obtained from multi-stage random sampling. The tool used to collect data as a questionnaire with values is a 5-level rating scale Precision between 0.80–1.00, discriminatory power between 0.34-0.76 and confidence value of 0.97 that the data were analyzed with confirmatory compositional analysis and phase 3: Creating and Evaluating a manual for using indicators of inspirational leadership for school administrators. That 5 experts evaluate the suitability of the indicator manua and The tool used for evaluation is a questionnaire with a 5-level rating scale. The research is; I. Inspirational leadership of school administrators has 5 components, 81 indicators including 1) Optimism is 14 indicators. 2) Participation is 21 indicators, 3) Enthusiasm is 11 indicators 4) Trustworthiness is 18 indicators, and 5) Vision is 17 indicators. All indicators were appropriate and at the highest level feasibly. II. Structural model of indicators of inspirational leadership of school administrators developed for be in accord with empirical data (c2 = 108.07, df = 90, p-value = 0.09423, c2/df = 1.200, GFI = 0.98, AGFI = 0.96, RMSEA = 0.000) and III. Manual for using indicators indicating the inspirational leadership of school administrators that appropriate at the highest level.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".