The Framework and Measure of Effective School Visioning Strategy (MCP-FIV)
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
This article describes a pilot study in which a prototype instrument is presented as a first step toward a reliable and valid tool that facilitates both the establishment of a visioning strategy and evaluation of the effectiveness of visioning strategies, existing or new. A brief historical perspective precedes an examination of the actual steps that comprise a visioning strategy. Analysis of research data arising from a pilot study involving the instrument suggests that school leaders are more likely to be involved in visioning strategy than parents or students. All stakeholders generally, and parents, students, and principals specifically, are more likely to be involved in visioning processes in medium-sized schools. School leaders will be challenged to consider whether change in their schools is consistent with vision that has been inclusively and collaboratively established or if such change reflects centralized, mandated, top-down processes that are simply implemented by principals.
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 | 0.005 | 0.063 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it