Quality of Faculty Life and Lifelong Learning Tendencies of University Students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to examine the university students’ opinions about quality of faculty life and their lifelong learning tendencies. Research was conducted with 375 university students. According to the findings: the quality of faculty life of students differ according to gender. Male students have lower quality of faculty life than female students and male students have higher lifelong learning tendency than female students. Lifelong learning tendency of students differ according to classroom level variable. Second grade students have higher lifelong learning tendency than fourth grade students. Third grade students have lower quality of faculty life of the other students. Lifelong learning tendency of students differ according to field of study. Educational sciences students have lower lifelong learning tendency than computer and instructional technology students. Computer and instructional technology students have lower quality of faculty life than educational sciences students and fine arts students. Educational sciences students have higher quality of faculty life than elementary education students. The results reveal that the opinions of university students about quality of faculty life is a significant predictor of their opinions about life long learning tendencies. Students’ opinions to fulfill their goals are seen vital as being one of the most important factor within the context of university management. It is important that to search and find out the quality of faculty life and life learning tendecies of university students help to increase the level of quality of faculty life and so generating education policies according to these results. Therefore analysing the opinions of university students on quality of faculty life and lifelong learning tendencies is expected to develop new faculty management strategies and provide important benefits to researchers and implementors. Besides that lifelong learning tendencies can be affected by other variables and they may be investigated in the next researches.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".