An Evaluation of Arrogance Orientations of Academicians in Higher Education According to Student and Alumni Opinions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Arrogant individuals are individuals who tend to position themselves in the center, both in their daily lives and in organizational life, and their relationships with others. While they exaggerate their importance, they tend to take over success in any case. Arrogance, which has the potential to adversely affect the organizational climate, can turn into an obstacle to the state of collective engagement and have a devastating effect on the science discipline, for example, in the academic community. In this context, this study aims to examine the arrogance orientations of academicians working in universities, which are higher education organizations. For this purpose, phenomenology, which is a qualitative research design, was used, and thirteen participants consisting of undergraduate and graduate students and graduates were reached with the maximum variation sampling method. The data obtained through focus group interviews using semi-structured questions were analyzed in terms of content using the Maxquda qualitative data analysis program. Findings obtained as a result of the analyses reveal that the arrogance orientations of academicians were gathered under the dimensions of individuality, comparison, contempt, and discrediting. Based on these results, it is possible to indicate that it affects the academic organization climate negatively and feeds on individuality. In this context, it can contribute to reducing the potentially destructive effects of arrogance by encouraging collective work in academic organizations.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".