MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7107868207 · doi:10.5281/zenodo.17738938

Intersectional Solidarity: The Importance of Women in Canadian Educational Leadership Coming Together Over Time

2025· article· W7107868207 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) · 2025
Typearticle
Language
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender Diversity and Inequality
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDisadvantageEducational leadershipEquity (law)Graduation (instrument)Educational equityDisadvantagedInstructional leadership

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Education is often considered the single most important indicator of a nation’s progress and promise. Education acts to offer opportunity and optimism for those that have not been born to wealth and privilege. Yet without thoughtful awareness, school systems can continue to perpetuate disadvantage – unless there is a leader willing to see the promise in everyone. Strong educational leadership is required to fortify the growth realized by individuals and push the boundaries forward from promise to actualization. It is an accepted fact that educational leadership is second only to teacher impact on student achievement, graduation rates, and attendance. Kind, intelligent and thoughtful leadership influences teacher retention rates, equity affirming practices and school cultures. In Canada, one of the most liberal countries in the world, continues to see difference in leadership opportunities for women, particularly those from equity deserving communities. This article takes a bi-ethnographic exploration of the journey of two school leaders with differing positionality but a shared goal of school leadership diversification.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.064
Threshold uncertainty score0.436

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0640.018
Scholarly communication0.0110.004
Open science0.0020.012
Research integrity0.0020.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.095
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.193 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)→Same topicGender Diversity and Inequality→French-language works237,207→