The Academic Ethics of Graduate Students at Yarmouk University: From the Point of View of the Students Themselves
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The study aims to identify the reality and degree of commitment of postgraduate students to ethical behaviors from the students' own point of view, and to identify the statistical differences of the reality of academic ethics according to the variables of gender, college and academic degree. The sample of the study consisted of (270) male and female postgraduate students, and in order to achieve the objectives of the study and answer its questions, the questionnaire- based survey approach was followed. The results showed that the degree of commitment to academic ethics among postgraduate students was average in all fields, where the arithmetic mean about the reality of the degree of commitment to academic ethics was (3.50) and mean of the ethics of human and community relations was (2.85). Results also indicated that there were statistically significant differences at the level of (α 0.05). According to the difference in the gender variable and in favor of males, and there were no differences in relation to the variable of the college to which the student belongs. Therefore, it is imperative for the Jordanian universities to enhance and develop the degree of commitment to ethics among students in general, whether inside or outside 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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".