Factor Analysis of Key Success Indicators in Curriculum Quality Assurance Operation for Bachelor’s Degree in Physical Education
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to analyze the factors of key success indicators in curriculum quality assurance operation for bachelor’s degree in Physical Education. The 576 subjects were selected using cluster sampling from curriculum lecturers, staffs, and lecturers at the Academy of Physical Education Curriculum. The instrument was a related questionnaire with a 1-5 rating scale. The data were analyzed using exploratory factor analysis (EFA) with principal component analysis and orthogonal rotation by the Promax method.The results of the study revealed that there were four factors influencing key success indicators in curriculum quality assurance operation for bachelor’s degree in Physical Education, sorted by priority. The four factors are: 1) learning management and student assessment components, 2) student potential improvement components, 3) quality of lecturer components, and 4) system and mechanism of curriculum administration. Generally, the obtained factors accounted for 70.166 percent of key success indicators in curriculum quality assurance operation for bachelor’s degree in Physical Education.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it