Analyzing Existing and Targeted Culture Typologies in the Light of the Strategy Document in Foundation Universities: The Case of A Foundation University
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Universities are multi-cultural, complicated, social education organizations. The presence of academic and administrative employees at these organizations might result in cultural differentiation, which is influenced by changing environmental conditions and social change dynamics. The purpose of this research is to determine the foundation university's dominant current and targeted cultural typologies using a foundation university as an example and to compare them to the university's target culture typology based on an analysis of the university strategy document. This comparison will aid in defining the perspectives of the organization's members through the concept of culture to achieve the university's strategic goals. Also, the examination of the strategy document, mission, the vision of the university and at the same time questioning the organization members’ opinions about this topic fills a hole in the literature in terms of observing two sides of the coin; “rulers” and “ruled”. In addition, we need to start to gain knowledge about foundation universities’ organizational culture because we already know that cultural awareness is crucial for an organization lifetime and this knowledge comes from the analyses of it. Among the different approaches used throughout the world to define organizational culture, Cameron and Quinn's "Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument in Competing Values Framework" was employed in the study. This research was conducted with a multi-modal methodological approach by using both quantitative and qualitative methods together with the questionnaire and document analysis. According to the findings, university organization members' current (market-competition) and targeted (clan-collaboration) organizational culture typology interpretations diverge from the university's strategy on the same subject.
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 | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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 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".