The Nature of Faith Communities in Alberta’s Separate High Schools
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This qualitative study explored the question, “What is the nature of the relationship between Alberta’s Catholic high school principals and the formation and maintenance of their schools’ faith communities?” The work of school principals is complex in that they are expected to build relationships with stakeholders internal and external to the school community. Using a case study approach, semistructured one-on-one interviews were conducted with 10 Alberta Catholic separate high school principals in different school configurations to examine their perceptions of building community in Alberta’s Catholic high schools. Four types of data were collected: (a) interview data, (b) supporting documents provided by the participants, (c) reflective field notes from on-site school visits, (d) and documents in the literature review. Analysis of the data identified 12 key findings under four overarching categories: defining community in Alberta Catholic high schools, strategies leaders used to form faith communities in Alberta high schools, benefits as a result of establishing faith communities, and challenges leaders have faced in forming faith communities. These overarching categories were further evaluated to generate four analytic themes: setting a direction grounded in faith, having a distinct purpose rooted in Catholic social teachings, using collective leadership to enhance community, and enriching faith communities via the larger community. By highlighting principals’ voices, and synthesizing and clarifying the best practices they have employed to foster their schools’ faith communities, this study enhances the literature on Catholic school leadership and deepens understanding of the expectations upon school leaders. Recommendations for Catholic principals, Catholic school boards, provincial government policymakers, and Catholic school system leaders are provided.
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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".