The Degree of Practicing Academic Freedom at the Jordanian Public and Private Universities in the Northern Region from the Point of View of the Faculty Members
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The study aimed at identifying the degree of practicing academic freedom by faculty members in Jordanian publicand private universities in the Northern Region from the point of view of the faculty members. The researcherapplied the analytical descriptive survey method. The study population was composed of faculty members ofJordanian public and private universities in the Northern Region for the year 2017/2018. Their number was 1210faculty members: 893 males and 308 females. The study sample was 445 males and 155 females, 50% of the studypopulation. To achieve the objectives of the study, a study tool was developed. It is a questionnaire consisting of 50items distributed on 5 domains. The findings of the study showed that the degree of practicing academic freedom byfaculty members in Jordanian public and private universities in the Northern Region from the point of view of thefaculty members on all domains of the tool was medium. Furthermore, there were no statistically significantdifferences at the level of significance (0.05 α ≤) in the degree of practicing academic freedom by faculty membersin Jordanian universities due to the variable of the type of university, and the existence of differences in the degree ofpracticing academic freedom by faculty members in Jordanian public and private universities in the Northern Regioncan be attributed to the academic rank between those whose rank is professor and associate professor on the one hand,and the rank of assistant professor on the other, for the benefit of the rank of professor and associate professor, ie, infavor of the upper rank. The researcher recommended the need to increase the practice of academic freedom by thefaculty members at the Jordanian public and private universities in the Northern Region.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".