The Reality of Risk Management in Private Jordanian Universities from the Viewpoint of Faculty Members
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aimed at investigating the reality of risk management in private Jordanian universities from the viewpoint of faculty members. In order to achieve the study objectives, the descriptive analytical approach was adopted. A questionnaire was developed for the purpose of collecting data from (106) subjects that were randomly selected from three private Jordanian universities (Aqaba University of Technology, Zarqa University, and the University of the Middle East). The results of the study indicated that the mean of the reality of risk management practice in private Jordanian universities from the viewpoint of the faculty members was medium. It was also revealed that there are no statistically significant differences at the level of significance (α≤ 0.05) in the reality of risks management practice in Jordanian universities especially from the point of view of the teaching staff members due to variables (sex, academic experience, academic rank, and the type of college). The study recommended holding training courses for workers in private Jordanian universities on planning for risk management.Key words: risk management, private Jordanian universities, faculty members.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".