Taking Followership Education to the Next Level
Bibliographic record
Abstract
If leadership is a relationship between a leader and follower (Rost, 1991), why are we, as higher education faculty and practitioners, so focused on only one half of the equation: the leader? When we examine the countless research articles, books, and conferences, it is clear that more attention has been paid to leaders than followers. Followership, however, in recent decades, is beginning to get its share of attention (Raffo, 2013). As educators in colleges and universities, we are tasked with sculpting and feeding the minds of students that will soon lead our society and make change. While higher education institutions across the United States and Canada offer leadership programs, certificates, and education, there seems to be a disconnect: if leadership is a relationship between the leader and follower, why is there no, or very little, education on followership (Smith, 2009)? In my opinion, there needs to be a shift in the way institutions support leadership education to ensure we are developing and graduating individuals that will shape our future in positive ways.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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".