Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Canadian women find it challenging to take on educational leadership. “Canadian female senior leaders cite obstacles to work/life balance as their most formidable career barrier (Randstad Canada, 2013). This study looks at the lived experiences of Generation X women; those born between 1960 and 1980. Their narratives, told in their voice, point to the disincentives for women who pursue the role of principal. There is a reluctance on the part of women to follow the leadership path. While women are told that they can have it all; there continues to be social and systemic barriers that exist despite the opportunities that women have. The study found that barriers and oppressions are not isolated; privilege exists for dominant groups in society by perpetuating oppressive practices through gender identity. To disrupt systems that oppress, it is important to ponder the lived experiences of women in education and the social structures that can privilege or oppress (Blackmore, 2006). According to ETFO, (Elementary Teachers Federation of Ontario) 81% of elementary teachers are women; however, we do not see the same trend for leadership. Barriers continue to delay a woman’s path to leadership. The results of the study conducted by OISE (Ontario Institute for Studies in Education) and the Learning Partnership for The Ministry of Education (2008) as well as The Ontario Principal’s Council (OPC) in 2016, point to the reality that although women bring more experience in their roles as principals and educational leaders, those that are promoted do so later in their career paths compared to male colleagues. In the context of school leadership and succession planning, a focus on career development, challenges and opportunities; as well as examining the relationship between age, experience and gender to accessing these opportunities, will provide school boards with valuable information in order to encourage young women leaders to pursue the principalship.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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 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".