Organizational reputation within the Framework of Total Quality Management: the University of Jordan as a Model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aimed to identify the organizational reputation of the University of Jordan (a model) in the context of its application of total quality management. The study sample consisted of (350) faculty members at the University of Jordan. The study also used the (questionnaire) tool that it developed is collect data after verifying its validity and reliability. The results of the study showed that there is a high degree in the achievement of the University of Jordan for Total Quality Management, which was reflected on its reputation, and that there were significant statistically significant differences at the level (a ≤ 0.05) in the university’s reputation as a result of its application of the principles of total quality management, which was explained by the high standards of the organizational reputation variable, starting with In terms of (creativity/strength of financial position/quality of service/social responsibility), the criterion of attractiveness was the least effective. Among the recommendations that came: maintaining the application of total quality management in the University of Jordan more effectively with continuous development and improvement, and working on marketing the University of Jordan to further improve the image in the minds of beneficiaries (existing and new prospects).
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".