Factors of the Internal Environment and Their Impact on Organizational Excellence in the Public Universities in Southern Jordan from the Point of View of Workers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aimed at analyzing the internal environment factors and their impact on organizational excellence in the public universities in southern Jordan from the point of view of the workers. To achieve the objectives of the study, a questionnaire was developed to cover the study variables. The study was conducted on a community consisting of (4) public universities distributed in the southern governorates: Mu'tah University, Tafila Technical University, Al Hussein Bin Talal University, the University of Jordan-Aqaba Branch. Administrative employees at the middle administrative levels reached (301). The researcher conducted a comprehensive survey of the study community through using the analytical descriptive statistic methods, by using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS). The study reached a number of results, most important are: The general arithmetic mean of the respondents' perceptions of the dimensions of the internal environment factors in public universities in southern Jordan has reached a medium rating. Also, the general arithmetic mean of the respondents' perceptions of the dimensions of organizational excellence in the public universities in southern Jordan reached a medium rating. Among other results, there is a statistically significant positive relationship between the independent variable (internal environment factors), and its different dimensions and the dependent variable (organizational excellence) and its different dimensions. In light of the results of the study, the study recommended a number of recommendations, most important are: the necessity of preparing a working environment and its factors and the appropriate conditions that increase the organizational excellence, paying attention to developing the capabilities of the employees and training them according to studied scientific programs as well as the need to increase the volume of expenditure on research and development activities, because spending on such activities has become an investment spending.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".