MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2282258994 · doi:10.5539/ies.v9n3p104

Investigating Effective Components of Higher Education Marketing and Providing a Marketing Model for Iranian Private Higher Education Institutions

2016· article· en· W2282258994 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Roya Babaee Kasmaee, Mohammad Ali Nadi, Badri Shahtalebi

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Education Studies · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicManagement and Marketing Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHigher educationThematic analysisMarketingOriginalityQualitative researchSociologyClass (philosophy)Private sectorMarketing researchPsychologyBusinessEconomicsSocial scienceComputer scienceEconomic growth

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<p class="apa">Purpose-The purpose of this paper is to study and identify the effective components of higher education marketing and providing a marketing model for Iranian higher education private sector institutions.</p><p class="apa">Design/methodology/ approach- This study is a qualitative research. For identifying the effective components of higher education marketing and providing a marketing model the thematic analysis was used. First all the themes related to higher education marketing from the research references were collected and was analyzed by template analysis and thematic network methods.</p><p class="apa">Findings-The results of thematic analysis revealed that there are 2 dominant themes, 13 global themes, 40 organizing themes and 503 basic themes related to higher education marketing. The relationships between these themes are provided as a marketing model for Iranian private sector higher educational institutions.</p><p class="apa">Originality/value-There are few studies of higher education marketing in the Iranian higher education market. This study provides useful information about effective components of higher education marketing and marketing models.</p>

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.307
Threshold uncertainty score0.897

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.073
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.272 · 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 teacher head, 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
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Education StudiesSame topicManagement and Marketing EducationFrench-language works237,207