MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2788076689 · doi:10.5430/ijhe.v7n2p15

Assessment of the Quality of Electronic Administrative Services in a Greek Higher Education Institution: Α Case Study

2018· article· en· W2788076689 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Anastasia Papanthymou, Μαρία Δάρρα

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Higher Education · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicTechnology Adoption and User Behaviour
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuality (philosophy)Service (business)Medical educationHigher educationAdministrative services organizationInstitutionPerceptionService qualityPsychologyAcademic yearBusinessMedicinePublic relationsPolitical scienceMathematics educationMarketing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The basic aim of this paper is to investigate the perceptions, attitudes and experiences of the students of the Department of Primary Education of the University of the Aegean regarding the quality of the provided services to them by the Secretariat of Administrative Electronic Services. The survey was conducted during the second semester of the academic year 2016-2017 with the use of an anonymous written questionnaire which was completed by 128 undergraduate students of the Department of Primary Education of the University of the Aegean. The results of the survey show that students primarily consider as the most important service for them the department’s website and the service Studentsweb. The least important service for them is the communication platform uniway for mobiles. Also, the degree of satisfaction with electronic administrative services is related to the criteria: availability, ease of use, good organization, responsiveness of services to the needs and expectations of students, and the degree of information. Moreover, problems such as "Mistakes about courses’ grades" and "Unsuccessful academic books’ registration" appears to have a negative impact on the degree of satisfaction of students with the corresponding services in which the problems occur. The findings of this research can be useful to the administrative staff and faculty of the University of the Aegean as they reveal the dimensions of electronic administrative services that are important and effective and satisfy or create problems for students.

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: Case report · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
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 head0.140
GPT teacher head0.536
Teacher spread0.396 · 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 designCase report
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

Citations3
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Higher EducationSame topicTechnology Adoption and User BehaviourFrench-language works237,207