IMPLICACIÓN LABORAL DE LOS DOCENTES DE POSGRADO Y LA EVALUACIÓN QUE LES REALIZAN SUS ESTUDIANTES EN UNA UNIVERSIDAD ECUATORIANA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The goal of this research is to identify if there is a difference in the evaluation that graduate students make of their teachers when they report different levels of work engagement in their dimensions of vigor, dedication and absorp-tion. The students and teachers who received and taught in the third quarter of the 2016-2017 school year were taken as a reference in an academic area of a graduate university in Ecuador. The evaluations of teachers carried out by the students at the end of the term were used, and they were contrasted with the levels of work engagement reported by their teachers before the beginning of the term. The methodology was quantitative in nature: statisti-cal tests were applied to test the significance of the differences found in the different analyzes, and the result was that teachers who reported higher values of vigor were evaluated with higher scores in their ability to generate an atmosphere of participation in the classroom. The conclusion of the study is then that one of the dimensions of proffesors’ work engagement had an impact on one of the components of the evaluation that students carried out on their lecturers in the selected sample.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".