MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7015946791

Unrecognized Exodus, Unaccepted Accountability : The Looming Shortage of Principals and Vice Principals in Ontario Public School Boards (Working Paper 24)

2016· report· en· W7015946791 on OpenAlexaffabout

Bibliographic record

VenueQSpace (Queen's University Library) · 2016
Typereport
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAccountabilityEconomic shortageSurprisePrincipal (computer security)LoomingOrder (exchange)Scale (ratio)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To the apparent surprise of policy makers at the provincial and school board levels, \nOntario’s public schools are about to experience a massive exodus of principals and vice principals. \nThis report, funded by a grant from the Ontario Principals’ Council, details the scale of the retirement \nwave currently hitting Ontario’s public school boards. Data collected from 946 practicing school \nadministrators suggest that the retirement rates will be almost 20 per cent higher than provincial \nestimates. \nAnecdotal evidence suggests that the pool of qualified candidates for these positions is also shrinking. \nAlready, fewer individuals are applying for each available vacancy. The study examines the major \ndissatisfiers in the current role of school principal as experienced by incumbents. Interviews were also \nconducted with 92 individuals identified as exceptional candidates for the principalship who had \nopted not to follow that career path in order to determine what factors they found most important in \ntheir decision making. The report concludes with recommendations for the province, school boards and principals' organizations.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.051
Threshold uncertainty score0.280

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0160.008
Scholarly communication0.0060.002
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.042
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.194 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueQSpace (Queen's University Library)French-language works237,207