MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7017917388

CAN SCHOOL BOARDS GOVERN? A CONCEPTUAL ANALYSIS OF THE MEANING OF GOVERNANCE IN RELATION TO ONTARIO PUBLIC SCHOOL BOARDS

2010· article· en· W7017917388 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueScholarship@Western (Western University) · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal Issues in Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCorporate governanceMeaning (existential)NormativePoliticsProject governanceSubject (documents)Multi-level governanceOrder (exchange)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this inquiry was to investigate the meaning of the concept governance in order to answer the central research question “can school boards govern?” While the importance of the governance of organizations is widely acknowledged in the literature, the governance of local school boards has seldom been a central focus of research. The duality of governing and being governed experienced by school boards is not characteristic of board governance in the private and nonprofit sectors and so made school boards an exceptional area of governance research.\nThe method of inquiry was to subject the central concept of governance to a conceptual analysis. The analysis drew from a spectrum o f normative and academic literatures, from governance in broad political and organizational contexts to board governance in private, public, and nonprofit organizations. It then focused on the evolution of school boards in Ontario with attention to shifts in how school board governance was understood including conflicts over power, authority, areas of competence, and responsibility for the public good.\nThree central themes emerged. First, that governance, although described and discussed in different contexts from a variety of critical perspectives, has a number of consistent and essential characteristics or features. These are power, authority, and fiduciality, and legitimacy, governance as political and oriented toward public good. Second, governance is subject to internal and external conditions, constraints, and circumstances. These internal and external influences are treated as contingent\nfeatures. Finally, board governance is a social practice. As such, the activities of\nboard members in the act of governing contribute to the outcomes of governance, both positive and negative.\nThe analysis provides a point of reference for understanding and discussing school boards as governing bodies. Essential and contingent governance features afford a language for school boards (and other governing boards) to assess their practice and facilitate reasoned conversation about roles, responsibilities, and ethical issues.\nThe inquiry concludes that school boards in Ontario can govern and identifies implications for the practice of school board governance.

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 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)0.002
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 score0.907
Threshold uncertainty score0.981

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.073
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.255 · 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