Journal of Women in Educational Leadership, Vol. 2, No. 1-January 2004
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The differences in the Soul Sisters personal, cultural and educational backgrounds contribute to the richness of the portrait.The article is a testament to the leadership possibilities that exist in educational settings.McGovern-Robinett and Ovando address the challenges and contributions of women principals serving in male-dominated, secondary school settings.Through their report of the leadership experiences of three women high school plincipals, they broaden the understanding of female educational leadership at the high school level.The integration of the literature on culture, gender and leadership is prominent in the manuscript.Wesson and Carr reflect on their understanding of a change process grounded in theory, defined by practice, and influenced by an executive coach.The manuscript is written in the voices of the department chair and the executive coach.The department chair identifies her post modern visionary belief system and her role in a leadership department "riddled with dilemmas."The executive coach defines her role as coach and describes how the transformation of the department chair OCCUlTed.Brown and Irby present a synergistic leadership theory.They note that the theory was developed by female researchers.utilized a female sample and included the female perspective.The gender-inclusive theory includes attributes, expeliences and abilities inherent in both male and female leaders.The theory is applied in an analysis of nan-ative vignettes of four female leaders.Together these wlitings form the beginning of a scholarly discussion of the directions, choices and challenges facing women in educational leadership.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.047 | 0.008 |
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".