Knowledge and Perception of Nanotechnology Among Students of Agricultural Faculties’ in Jordan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigated Knowledge and Perception of Nanotechnology among Students of Agricultural Faculties’ in Jordan. The research was based on distributing a questionnaire. This study collected data from 485 respondents, of which 410 were analyzed. The results revealed that a very significant finding that the majority of the investigated students (45%) have already heard the word ‘nanotechnology’, though (72%) of those (45%) do not know about nanotechnology very well. The results of the present study indicated that students have basic or no enough knowledge about nanotechnology. The results also showed that students were with a very superficial knowledge of Nanotechnology. Moreover, none of the examined variables has no significant effect on the perception toward nanotechnology. Even though it is expected that students with higher years of study could show more expertise and acquire more developed topics such as the Nanotechnology concept, the students showed similar knowledge of Nanotechnology regardless of their year in study. The study recommends that the Jordanian educational policymakers in higher education should consider the inclusion of the Nanotechnology concept in the curricula of the different academic courses.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".