MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1528048592 · doi:10.5539/ibr.v8n8p103

The Effects of Higher Education’s Institutional Organizational Climate on Performance Satisfaction: Perceptions of University Faculty in Taiwan

2015· article· en· W1528048592 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Cheng‐Cheng Yang

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Business Research · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHigher Education Governance and Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOrganisation climateHigher educationAutonomyOrganizational commitmentPerceptionOrganizational performancePublic relationsPolitical scienceOrganizational studiesPsychologyBusinessMarketing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The performance of higher education institutions in the world has become an emergent issue. Asian countries tried to offer more autonomy to universities; consequently, universities moved toward scientific management and emphasized organizational performance and efficiency. Taiwan is no exception to this trend. Thus, studying the institutional organizational climate in higher education is critical for current higher education changes in Taiwan, and it is even more important to study organizational climate’s effects on universities. This research developed a questionnaire to explore Taiwanese university faculty members’ perceived institutional organizational climate and their satisfaction with teaching and research in the last five years. The findings of this research implicate that gender difference is an important factor to consider when university administration wants to enhance the internal organizational climate in Taiwan. Years of employment, university history, and research field all have different effects on faculty members’ perceived organizational climate aspects. Implications for policy making and future researches are discussed in this research article.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.158
Threshold uncertainty score0.559

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.390
Teacher spread0.344 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations8
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Business ResearchSame topicHigher Education Governance and DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207