The Degree Represent of the Faculty Members in Official Jordanian Universities for the Human Relation Amongst them (University Collegiality) as a Professional Ethical Behavior
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aims at identifying the degree represent of the faculty members in official Jordanian Universities for the human relation among them (University Collegiality) as a professional ethical behavior, the survey methodology has been used in this study, and developed questionnaire consists of (26) paragraphs, and the tool has been verified its validity and reliability. The study sample consisted of official Jordanian universities’ members represented by the universities of Jordan, Yarmouk and Mutah, a total of (300) member, were selected in a simple random method, and the study concluded the following results:The Arithmetical averages and standard deviations showed that the degree of represent the faculty members in official Jordanian Universities for the human relation among them (University Collegiality) as a professional ethical behavior it was a medium degree.The result showed statistically significant differences at the significance level (p=0.05) in the estimates of the study sample members for the degree represent of the faculty members in official Jordanian Universities for the human relation among them (University Collegiality) as a professional ethical behavior, it referred to gender variable, and it was in favor of males, the results also showed statistically significant differences for the faculty class and it was in favor of sciences faculties, also showed statistically significant differences for the academic rank and it was in favor of associate Professor rank.The study recommended to focus on the subject of the University Collegiality among the faculty members and develop an agreement of the university collegiality in participation of official and unofficial Jordanian universities.
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 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".