MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2121491281 · doi:10.5539/ies.v2n1p25

Quality Assurance in Higher Education Institutions: Exist Survey among Universiti Putra Malaysia Graduating Students

2009· article· en· W2121491281 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mohd Majid Konting, Norfaryanti Kamaruddin, Nor Azirawani Man

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Education Studies · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEvaluation of Teaching Practices
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversiti Putra Malaysia
KeywordsResidenceMedical educationHigher educationQuality assurancePsychologySurvey researchQuality (philosophy)MedicineSociologyPolitical scienceApplied psychologyDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents the exit survey of graduating students at Universiti Putra Malaysia (UPM). The results gathered from 1,823 final year students of the 2006/07 session indicate that overall, the students’ satisfaction level is moderately high (3.55 ± 0.79). The students’ perception on the attributes of graduates resulting from learning outcomes is also moderately high (3.65 ± 0.66). Although there are no differences in students’ satisfaction level according to gender (t = .582, p > 0.05) and students’ residence (t = .121, p > 0.05), however, it differs according to students’ study programs (F = 35.44, p < 0.01), with Social Science students having a higher satisfaction level (3.80) compared to their counterparts in the Physical Sciences and Engineering (3.48) and Bioscience and Medicine (BSM) programs (3.37). Through this exit survey, together with many other assessment initiatives, the university aspires to provide the highest possible quality in terms of teaching, research and professional services.

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)0.005
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.473
GPT teacher head0.594
Teacher spread0.121 · 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

Citations54
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Education StudiesSame topicEvaluation of Teaching PracticesFrench-language works237,207