Educational Service Quality in Zanjan University of Medical Sciences from Students' Point of View
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aims at evaluating perceived service quality in Zanjan University of Medical Sciences (ZUMS). Thisstudy was cross-sectional and authors surveyed educational services at ZUMS. Through stratified random sampling,384 students were selected and an adapted SERVQUAL instrument was used for data collection. Data analysis wasperformed by using SPSS 11.5. The results indicated that there were the negative mean score of quality gap in alldimensions of the service quality. Overall services quality mean was (-1.6±.78). The highest and lowest differencesof mean scores between students' expectations and perceptions were in the responsiveness and (-1.83±1.01) andreliability ((-1.33±.79) dimensions respectively. Paired t-test showed the significant statistical differences betweenstudents' expectations and perceptions (ρ < <0.001) in all dimensions of the service quality. Thus, improvementactions are felt in all domains of the educational service quality; Students rated the responsiveness as the mostimportant dimension of service quality in ZUMS.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".