Program to Strengthen Transformational Leadership for Middle- Level Administrators of Art Universities in Western China
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objectives of this research were: 1) to explore existing situations and desirable situations on transformational leadership of middle-level administrators of art universities; and 2) to develop a program to strengthen transformational leadership for middle-level administrators of Art Universities. Mixed methods research was employed, which was divided into two phases: Phase 1 was exploring existing situations, desirable situations on transformational leadership of middle-level administrators. The samples were 355 faculty staff, including 24 deans and 331 teachers. The research instrument was a 5-rating scale questionnaire. Phase 2 was developing a program to strengthen the transformational leadership of middle-level administrators. The informants were 5 middle-level administrators who are outstanding on transformational leadership, and 7 experts evaluating the program. Research instruments were an interview form and a program evaluation form. Statistics used were mean, standard deviation, and modified priority needs index. The research results were: 1) the existing situation of transformational leadership of middle-level administrators was at a high level. While the desirable situation was at a very high level; and 2) Program to strengthen transformational leadership of middle-level administrators of art universities comprising 2.1) Rationale, 2.2) Objectives: to educate and develop middle-level administrators on transformational leadership, 2.3) Content consists of 4 modules: idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration, 2.4) development methods divided into two stages. Stage 1 is a workshop, and Stage 2 is on-the-job development by operating the activities for continuous improvement of transformational leadership through the Plan-Do-Check-Act cycle, 2.5) Media and learning resources, and 2.6) Measurement and evaluation consists of the tests for pre and post workshop, an evaluation form of transformational leadership, and an observation form. An evaluation of a program was at the highest level in propriety, feasibility, and utility.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".