Study on Research Management in Universities under Guidance of “People-Oriented” Concept
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Enhancing management of research work is the premise of consistent development in universities, which requires the “people-oriented” managing concept, the initiative, enthusiasm and creativity of the research staff as well as the managing members to ensure effective realization of the research object. In addition, environment should be improved favorably to facilitate overall and free development of the research faculty and the managing members. Key words: scientific development concept; people-oriented; concept of management Resume: L’amelioration de la gestion des travaux de recherches scientifiques est une condition indispensable pour realiser le developpement durable des colleges et des universites. Pour assurer la realisation des objectifs des recherches scientifiques, il faut adopter le concept de People-oriented dans la gestion, mobiliser l'enthousiasme et la creativite des chercheurs scientifiques et des gestionnaires des projets de recherches scientifiques. En meme temps, il faut aussi creer les conditions favorables pour l’epanouissement du personnel scientifiques. Mots-cles: le concept de developpement scientifique ; le concept de People-oriented; le concept de gestion 摘 要：加強對高校科研工作的管理是實現高校可持續發展的不可或缺的必要前提。在高校科研管理中，確立“以 人為本”管理理念，調動科研人員和科研管理人員的主動性、積極性和創造性，以保證科研工作目標的有效實現。 積極創造條件，努力促成科研人員和科研管理人員的全面自由發展。 關鍵詞：科學發展觀；以人為本； 管理理念
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".