MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2315099966 · doi:10.5539/res.v8n2p96

Research Promoting Guidelines for the College of Government, Rangsit University, Thailand

2016· article· en· W2315099966 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Kittisak Jermsittiparsert, Thanaporn Sriyakul, Arunee Kasayanond

Bibliographic record

VenueReview of European Studies · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPublic Policy and Administration Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersOffice of the Higher Education CommissionThammasat UniversityThailand Research FundRangsit UniversityKhon Kaen University
KeywordsPromotion (chess)Government (linguistics)Context (archaeology)IncentivePolitical sciencePublic relationsQuality (philosophy)Medical educationBusinessMedicineEconomicsGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Considering that researches are perceived as the main mission for every universities in Thailand, a key performance indicator representing performance quality of relevant agencies, as well as an assessment factor for world leading university ranking programmes. None the less, there are no clear guidelines set by the College of Government, Rangsit University with respect to the internal practices towards the promotion of research activities. Accordingly, this study aims to (i) examine all researches context and research promotion policy found within the College of Government, Rangsit University; (ii) conduct a strength-weakness analysis; (iii) analyse experiences and lessons learned of other institutes; and lastly; (iv) provide applicable recommendations, based on literature reviews of both primary and secondary materials, for the College. From the research findings, it is discovered that (i) supports given by the University have, in general, led to a higher number of research publications, however, more could still be achieved should they had utilised the support programme more effectively; (ii) despite the College’s research support programme including its fostering environment and favourable organization culture, a lack of research initiatives as well as limited number of competent staffs are essentially main challenges that restrict possible research potentials; (iii) the challenges faced by either the College or Rangsit University are also present amongst other institutions, of which they have laid down relevant guidelines aiming to promote research publications; (iv) there are three steps that the College could undergo, as an ad hoc response, the College should provide greater research incentives and more supporting environment for its academics, followed by creating appealing conditions to encourage publications and disseminations, and lastly as an ultimate long run solution, practical strategy and systematic regimes should be put in place.

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)0.049
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.075
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Incentives · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.951
Threshold uncertainty score0.261

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0490.075
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.006
Science and technology studies0.0050.005
Scholarly communication0.0110.006
Open science0.0020.006
Research integrity0.0050.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0760.048

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 head0.452
GPT teacher head0.534
Teacher spread0.082 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
DomainIncentives
GenreMethods

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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReview of European StudiesSame topicPublic Policy and Administration ResearchFrench-language works237,207