Libyan PR Participants’ Perceptions of and Motivations for Studying PR in Libya
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Public relations in Libya is very much a new phenomenon, even compared with other Arab countries, although there are PR practices growing in tandem with some large local businesses and organisations. Based on the assumption that PR continues to play a vital role in communities and businesses, it is important to reconsider and evaluate its practices regularly, especially in terms of teaching and skills (including its curriculum). This study explores the quality of the educational PR curriculum, training and taught courses in Libyan universities by focusing on the perceptions of Libyan PR’s academic professionals and senior PR students, covering roughly more than a quarter-century of teaching at undergraduate and postgraduate levels. It examines how university PR students are taught, what strategies and modules are applied and how professionals and students evaluate the PR curriculum and their practical advantages. Based on a survey (N=367) and interview (N=15) approach, the overall findings revealed that the PR curriculum needed to be updated and that PR should be recognised as a practical, not a theoretical, subject and should have its own union helping to provide more training programmes in an updated setting.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".