MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2092064618 · doi:10.5539/ies.v5n6p161

Study of Core Competency Elements and Factors Affecting Performance Efficiency of Government Teachers in Northeastern Thailand

2012· article· en· W2092064618 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Pacharawit Chansirisira

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Education Studies · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCompetency Development and Evaluation
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMahasarakham University
KeywordsCronbach's alphaPsychologySimple random sampleDescriptive statisticsGovernment (linguistics)Sample (material)Reliability (semiconductor)Active listeningService (business)Medical educationApplied psychologyKnowledge managementComputer scienceBusinessStatisticsMarketingSociologyPopulationMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The research aimed to investigate the core competency elements and the factors affecting the performance efficiency of the civil service teachers in the northeastern region, Thailand. The research procedure consisted of two steps. In the first step, the data were collected using a questionnaire with the reliability (Cronbach's Alpha) of .90. The sample size was specified based on Krejcie and Morgan’s table and 352 samples were selected using the simple random sampling technique. The second step involved an in-depth interview of 10 specialists to gain the ways to develop effective performance competency and the statistics used for data analysis included percentage, standard deviation, and descriptive analysis. The questionnaire results revealed that there were 11 elements of 4 core competencies. There were 2 elements for the achievement motivation competency, 3 elements for the service mind competency, 3 elements for the team work competency, and 3 elements for the self-development competency. For appropriate ways to develop core competencies for effective performance of civil service teachers, there were 13 ways which included understanding of related environment, supporting of working resources, having effective management system, reducing losses at work, creating good working atmosphere, promoting participation in decision making, supporting staff for professional development, communicating openly within the organizations, listening to the opinions of others, developing of quality system in work, creating good human relations among staff, building morale in the workplace, and specifying appropriate working patterns.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.103
GPT teacher head0.410
Teacher spread0.308 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations4
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Education StudiesSame topicCompetency Development and EvaluationFrench-language works237,207