Perceived quality in higher education: an empirical study
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
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to address two issues. First research goal is about analyzing differences in perceived quality in higher education (HE) between a private and a public university centre. Second, the research aims to analyze which are the key dimensions in perceived quality in HE from the students’ standpoint. Design/methodology/approach – An analysis based on a modified SERVQUAL instrument was used to respond to the objectives put forward. Then, a mean comparison and covariance structure analysis approach was carried out to test the differences in perceived quality between the students from both centres, as well as the dimensions with higher influence in perceived quality. Findings – The results suggest that tangibility and empathy dimensions are the most influent variables on perceived quality in HE. Furthermore, some relevant significant differences were found between the public and the private centre. Research limitations/implications – The results give an opportunity to HE institutions’ managers to develop enhancing quality strategies for their institutions, given that the present study relies on a sample of actual undergraduate university students. Originality/value – The present research provides with a comparative analysis between a private and a public centre, in order to assess which one offers higher educational and teaching quality from the students’ viewpoint, as well as an approach to the main variables in HE perceived quality.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 it