Stakeholders’ Perceptions of Quality and Potential Improvements in the Learning Resources Centers at Omani Basic Education Schools
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
This study attempts to investigate the stakeholders’ perceptions of quality and prospective improvements in the learning resources centres (LRC) at Omani basic education schools. It focuses on different aspects of the LRCs: organisation, human resources, technological, and educational aspects along with the difficulties faced by these LRCs and ways to improve their quality and evaluation. Five questionnaires for all types of stakeholders were designed, validated and implemented. Findings show that the services have yet to be improved and reach better levels of quality standards since they are not ‘always’ implemented with quality. Evidence shows that the need for retaining LRC specialists was insurmountable. A training model for the Omani schools was recommended in light of the Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) and International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) criteria and competencies.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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