MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2029812695 · doi:10.5539/ies.v1n2p70

A Study on the Application of STP Marketing Strategy in the MBA Education Program of Universities in China

2008· article· en· W2029812695 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Hongyi Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Education Studies · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicManagement and Marketing Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChinaHigher educationMarketingPolitical scienceSociologyEconomic growthBusinessEconomicsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The MBA education has begun in America and now it has become mature after nearly one hundred years’ development. Although China’s MBA merely has a history of 17 years, it has already gained great achievements. In 1991, 9 universities in China had MBA program and 86 students enrolled in. In 2007, the two numbers were 127 and 59,776 respectively. The law of things’ development is to progress in a wave style and to rise in a spiral way. China’s MBA education is not an exception. In 2002, the enrolling number was 67,506, being the highest ever. In 2003 and 2004, the number decreased heavily, respectively reducing 16 percent and 13 percent. From 2005 to 2007, the number increased with a rate of 9 percent, 3 percent, and 6 percent respectively. The development of MBA in China’s universities has experienced a process of taking reference, exploring, developing, and regulating. In the aspects of teaching materials and methods, it chiefly takes references from experiences of universities in developed countries, such as America. In the aspects of enrollment and popularization, it makes a series of effective explorations based on China’s practical situation and others’ experiences. The application of STP marketing strategy exerts an extremely important driving effect on the development of China’s MBA program.

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)0.000
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 score0.160
Threshold uncertainty score0.309

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.299 · 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

Citations0
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Education StudiesSame topicManagement and Marketing EducationFrench-language works237,207