Barriers and Encounters of Navajo Female Administrators
Bibliographic record
Abstract
abstract: ABSTRACT \n\nPast research has determined the glass ceiling is still unbroken and that few women hold top positions as administrators as opposed to men. Men continue to dominate women in occupations of superintendent and secondary principals of schools. Cultural beliefs and traditions set limitations for Navajo female administrators regarding the taboo of “women can’t lead” mentality. The research questions in this study addressed perceived obstacles and barriers facing Navajo female school administrators, the extent Navajo female administrators believe Navajo beliefs limit their career advancement, and if Navajo female administrators believe they encounter more obstacles than their male counterparts. \n\nData were collected from 30 Navajo female administrators in public and bureau-operated schools in New Mexico. The survey consisted of 21 questions in a Likert-scale format with restricted responses, accessed on a Survey Monkey website. Results of the survey indicated that the respondents generally believed their career choice and opportunities were supported. However, approximately a quarter of the respondents believed support and opportunities were limited. And the overall data suggest there is room for improvement in all areas. In spite of the negative views, the respondents believe other women should be encouraged to go into school administration.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 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".