Governmental Measures towards the Coronavirus Crisis Management: An Applied Study from the Viewpoint of Faculty Members in Jordanian Universities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study is considered one of the rare studios in the world that examine the effect of government measures towards managing the Coronavirus crisis, according to the researcher's knowledge, the study relied on the descriptive-analytical approach, as well as on interviews with those in charge of crisis management in Jordan, (254) questionnaires were obtained from the study population sample, the Sampling unit was represented by faculty members in the departments of political science, media, and economics in Jordanian universities. The study reached the following: the high level of government measure implementation in the face of the Corona crisis, that the level of corona crisis management was moderate, and the effect of governmental measures on the management of the Corona crisis is an applied study from the viewpoint of faculty members in Jordanian universities. The study recommended the development of comprehensive visual and written media programs to educate citizens about the risk of disease, intensify health measures through preventive tracking teams for early detection of cases, that security measures not be at the expense of public freedoms, and find solutions to current and expected economic problems due to the crisis.
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 | 0.009 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".