MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2166397761 · doi:10.5267/j.msl.2012.01.023

Measuring the impact of e-learning on increasing organization quality of services: Case study of medical university in Ilam

2012· article· en· W2166397761 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Meysam Mirabizadeh, Sajad Gheitasi

Bibliographic record

VenueManagement Science Letters · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicOnline and Blended Learning
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuality (philosophy)Computer scienceProcess managementBusinessKnowledge managementOperations managementEngineering managementEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Information technology has made tremendous changes on ways people learn and communicate.People could go through internet to have an access to many knowledge based websites such as Wikipedia to learn or they may participate in e-learning programs offered by different well known universities in the world without bothering about the borders between countries.Elearning has proven as a cost efficient method especially for courses where there is no need to offer physical lab courses.It can literally eliminate different cost items involved with traditional learning such as transportation or the cost of leaving a job to learn more.The proposed study of this paper attempts to understand whether e-learning has any positive impact on quality improvement in an organization.The proposed study of this paper performs a survey on 525 people who work in medical school of Ilam.We have chosen a sample of 223 people and designed a questionnaire based on Likert scale.The results indicate that e-learning has positive relationship with quality improvement in an organization.

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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.304 · 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

Citations1
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueManagement Science LettersSame topicOnline and Blended LearningFrench-language works237,207