Success Results of High Performance and Potential System (HiPPS) Administration of Thai Government Departments
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The HiPPS was developed by the Office of the Civil Service Commission (OCSC). The aim of HiPPS was to prepare the Thai government officers with high performance and potential to develop and learn through the workplace as continual learning. The objectives of this research were 1) to evaluate the success in the HiPPS administration of the government departments, 2) to compare the opinions of the five sample groups about the success factors in the HiPPS administration, and 3) to investigate the problems in the use of HiPPS. The data were collected from five groups, 694 total samples from 42 government departments. The instruments were five rating-scale (1-5 level) questionnaires, in-depth interviews, and focus group interviews. Data was analyzed by ANOVA and the content analysis. The results indicated that overall, the average HiPPS administration of the government departments were fairly strength level in grade B ( = 3.37). In the comparison among the opinions of the five sample groups about the success factors: Context, Input, Process, Product, Outcome, and Impact, there were also statistically significant differences at .01 (F=19.536**, 13.010**, 22.143**, 6.493**, 28.010**, and 6.211** respectively). Finally, the most found problems in HiPPS administration were as follows: lacking of cooperation from executives, existence of patronage system, lacking of definite HiPPS responsible unit, frequent change in HiPPS committee, incompetency of human resource management, negative attitude of increasing workload of the officers responsible for HiPPS.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it