Organizational Culture Types that Academicians Associate with Their Institutions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study, considering the sample of a university located in central Anatolia region, Turkey, aims to identify culture types that the academicians perceive in relevant with their institutions according to the 4 types of cultures (Clan, Adhocracy, Hierarchy, and Market) given in the Competing Values Framework by Cameron and Quinn. The study includes 205 academicians from different faculties and vocational schools as participants. The data was obtained from the Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument (OCAI) that has been prepared particularly for the research group. Analyzes of the data obtained in the study were carried out with statistical package programs as IBM SPSS Statistics 23 and Interactive Lisrel SSI 8.72. The demographic features of the academicians were determined with percentage and frequency analyzes and the mean and standard deviation statistics were used in determining the perception levels of organizational culture types which academicians associate with their universities. For the analysis of the differentiation of culture-type perception levels according to the demographic characteristics of the academicians, t-test, one-way ANOVA test, and post-hoc tests were performed. According to the findings obtained in the research, the most common type of organizational culture that academicians associate with their institution is the hierarchy culture that is presented in Competing Values Framework Model. There is no significant difference between participants' demographic features and their culture perceptions. According to the result of the research, rules, stability, predictability, and sustainable politics are at the forefront of the university. Employees are supervised by managers who tend to be good coordinators.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".