The administrative practices of principals toward the goal of preparing students for citizenship in Manitoba's high schools
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The two basic purposes underlying the present study were: first, to identify the administrative practices that were used by principals during the 1998-99 school year to help prepare students for citizenship and to determine whether or not some administrative activities/actions were more common than others; and second, to examine how effective the identified administrative activities \ryere, based on the principals' perceptions and the reasons they gave for their perception Based on literature about the school principalship, a questionnaire was developed to investigate principals' perceptions of administrative activities in six major task areas.The 8l responding principals from high schools in Manitob4 Canada, provided a total of 439 activities.Each activity was classified in terms of who performed each action (doer) and who was the direct recipient of each action (target).Also studied were six characteristics of principals, namely, gender, years of being a principal, highest level of education completed, administrative certification status, the school type, and grade levels of the principals' schools.Four major research questions asked who performed each administrative action ("doer") and who was the direct recipient of each action ("target"), which characteristics of the principals were most associated with their more frequently mentioning one particular doer or target rather than another, which doer/target classifications and characteristics of these principals were most associated with their giving higher effectiveness ratings to these administrative efforts, and what reasons these principals gave for the effectiveness ratings of the given administrative activities.Findings include the following.First, whether principals worked alone or worked through/with others and whether the students, staff, school or other party was the direct . .
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".