Effect of Communication, Governance and Financial Capability on Service Quality and Lecturer Performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to analyze the effect of communication, governance and financial capacity on service quality and lecturer performance. The population in this study is 2,381 lecturers in Makassar area, slovin formulation was used to obtain 342 lecturers as a sample. Data from the questionnaires were analyzed using Structural Equation Model using AMOS Ver. 18. The study found that the communication and governance positive and significant effect on service quality, financial capability has a negative and no significant effect on service quality. Communication and financial capability has a positive and significant effect on lecturers performance, while the governance positive and insignificant effect on lecturers performance. Service quality has a positive and significant effect on lecturers’ performance. Indirectly for variable i.e. service quality as a mediating role has a positive and insignificant in explaining the effect of communication on lecturer performance, Service quality as a mediating role has a positive and insignificant in explaining the effect of governance on lecturer performance. On the other section, service quality as a mediating role has a negative and significant in explaining the effect of financial capabilities on lecturer’s performance.
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 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".