International approaches to children's services leadership and leadership development: literature and good practice review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
"Leadership development of practitioners in senior management positions in children’s services has been \nidentified as a policy priority by the UK government, and new leadership development programmes for current \nand aspiring directors of children’s services in England are being launched. In order to inform the development \nof these programmes, the National College for Leadership of Schools and Children’s Services (the National \nCollege) commissioned a literature review to identify how senior leadership roles in children’s services are \nconfigured and supported internationally and to assess the approach taken to reforming services in a selected \nnumber of countries, covering services across education, social services, health, child protection and wellbeing. \nAdditionally, information was sought on the approaches to supporting leadership development for children’s \nservices leaders (however configured) in each of the selected countries. \nThe countries included in the review, which were selected on the basis of criteria designed to allow valid and \nrelevant comparisons, were Denmark, The Netherlands, Ireland, Canada and Scotland, with additional information \non some aspects of the review being obtained for Australia, New Zealand and the USA." - Page 4.
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 | 0.027 | 0.075 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.022 | 0.039 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
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".