MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W55015456

Women and Educational Leadership: Exploring the Experiences of Current and Aspiring Female Educational Administrators

2012· article· en· W55015456 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Kimberly Crosby-Hillier

Bibliographic record

VenueScholarship at UWindsor (University of Windsor) · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender Diversity and Inequality
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
FundersUniversity of Windsor
KeywordsEducational leadershipPublic relationsPedagogyMedical educationPolitical sciencePsychologyMedicine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The increasing number of women participating in the paid workforce has been one of the dominant social trends in Canada over the last half century. While women have made tremendous strides in labour participation, the proportion of women in top-tier educational leadership positions remains a concern. The purpose of this mixed- methods research study is to explore the experiences of current and aspiring female educational administrators, utilizing a feminist theoretical perspective. This study explores the experiences of ten female educators: six aspiring female educational administrators and four current educational administrators, drawn from a local school board in Southwestern Ontario. Results of the semi-structured interviews and supplemental Likert-scale survey indicate four key themes influenced by gender relations, in the participants' experiences: (1) Intersection of Work and Family; (2) Mentoring Opportunities and Access to Resources; (3) Women's Work Relationships; and (4) Gender Politics. By drawing attention to the gendered experiences women encounter while pursuing and maintaining educational leadership positions, this study helps pave the way forward for teachers, administrators, policy makers and others interested in bringing about the aims of gender justice.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.892

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.293
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.030 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations11
Published2012
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScholarship at UWindsor (University of Windsor)Same topicGender Diversity and InequalityFrench-language works237,207