MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2114041631 · doi:10.5539/ass.v10n10p57

Categorisation of Public Universities Funding

2014· article· en· W2114041631 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Abd Rahman Ahmad, Alan Farley, Ng Kim-Soon

Bibliographic record

VenueAsian Social Science · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducation and Islamic Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia
KeywordsGovernment (linguistics)Public relationsPolitical scienceSubject (documents)Focus groupPublic administrationData collectionSurvey researchBusinessSociologyMarketingSocial scienceLibrary scienceSocioeconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper aims to investigate the impact of Federal Government policy on the categorisation of Malaysian public universities. The results of a quantitative survey questionnaire for major data collection and qualitative focus group interviews confirm that the initiative have an impact on research and teaching activities in Malaysian public universities. It can be concluded that the categorisation of Malaysian public universities play an important role in the development of research and teaching with greater focus on the university core functions. By utilising the results, the most important implications of this research relate to the practical aspects of the administration of public universities in Malaysia particularly during the government funding reforms. Finally, the researchers believe that the categorisation of Malaysian public universities is a rich and complex subject that offers many opportunities for future research including the comparative edge of Research/Apex Universities over other universities.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.039
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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.046

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.039
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0080.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.050
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.290 · 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

Citations11
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAsian Social ScienceSame topicEducation and Islamic StudiesFrench-language works237,207