The Impact of Perceived Organizational Support on the Quality of Educational Services at Arab Universities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The current study explored the impact of perceived organizational support on the quality of educational services at Arab universities. The descriptive analytical approach was used with a total sample consisting of 215 participants, from Jizan University, and participants from the International Islamic Sciences University. The results of the study showed that the level of both the perceived organizational support and the quality of educational services in universities, the study sample was medium. The results also showed a significant impact of the perceived organizational support on the quality of educational services at Arab universities. In addition to that, there are significant differences at the level of (α ≤ 0,05) in the quality of educational services level (quality of academic and administrative services, and the quality of facilities and equipment and quality of reputation) at Arab universities that can be attributed to (gender). And no significant differences at the level of (α ≤ 0,05) in the quality of educational services level (Quality of academic services, quality of administrative services, quality of facilities and equipment and quality of reputation) at Arab universities, that can be attributed (to experience and work nature). The study recommended the necessity of raising the level of perceived organizational support and raising the quality of educational services at Arab 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 | 0.002 | 0.014 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".