A global perspective on leadership in educational research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A global perspective on leadership in educational research is offered that is focused on the educational knowledge generation and mobilization of the explanations of self-study practitioner-researchers of their educational influences in learning with values of human \nflourishing that include living global citizenship. The explanations are drawn from Living Theory researchers in the UK, the Republic of Ireland, South Africa, Australia, Canada, Pakistan, Nepal, China, Afghanistan, Romania, Hawaii and Italy. An analysis of meanings of \nliving global citizenship takes care to answer questions and to reduce the colonizing influences of a definition of living global citizenship influenced by Western academic discourses. An analysis of the power relations involved in legitimating the livingeducational-theories of individual in global academic contexts, is followed by an analysis of \nthe educational knowledge mobilization of Living Theory research in global contexts. \nEducational Leadership in this knowledge mobilization is focused on a living-educationaltheory of international development. It includes the importance of communities of educational researchers working and researching collaboratively to extend the influence of Living Theory research as a global social movement with values that carry hope for human flourishing. The role of the multi-media Educational Journal of Living Theories (EJOLTS) in providing global educational leadership is focused on the use of digital visual evidence in both the generation of valid explanations of educational influences in learning and in the \nclarification of meanings of embodied expressions of values of human flourishing.
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 | 0.019 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.044 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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.
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".