MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386750187 · doi:10.5430/ijhe.v12n5p140

Guidelines for Improving the Budget Performance Management of Public Universities in Guangdong

2023· article· en· W4386750187 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Deng Liling, Luxana Keyuraphan, Niran Sutheeniran, Patchara Dechhome

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Higher Education · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicAccounting and Organizational Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAdaptabilityPerformance managementSample (material)BusinessTracking (education)Operations managementProcess managementEngineeringMarketingPsychologyEconomicsManagement

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objectives of this research were: 1) to study the current situation of budget performance management of public universities in Guangdong; 2) to investigate the guidelines for improving the budget performance management of public universities in Guangdong; 3) to evaluate the adaptability and feasibility of guidelines for improving the budget performance management of public universities in Guangdong.The sample group of this research was 285 administrators in public universities in Guangdong. They were selected by systematic random sampling and sample random sampling. The interview group was ten administrators from seven representative universities in Guangdong. The experts for evaluating the adaptability and feasibility of guidelines for improving budget performance management consisted of high-level administrators from each usual public university, totaling seven people. Research instruments included 1) a questionnaire, 2) a structured interview, and 3) an evaluation form—data analysis using percentage, mean, standard deviation, and content analysis.The results were found that: 1) The overall level of budget performance management of public universities in Guangdong is high, but it also reflects many problems; the main issues were as follows: (1)There were widespread challenges in budget performance goal management within universities, (2) including incomplete performance execution tracking and monitoring management, (3) insufficient strategic alignment of performance evaluation management, and (4) difficulties in applying performance evaluation results in feedback and application management, 2) The guidelines for improving the budget performance management divided into three aspects, which including (1) budget organization, (2)budget process, and (3)information system; and 3) The adaptability and feasibility of the guidelines for improving the budget performance management of universities were at the highest level.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.033
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.043
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.042
Threshold uncertainty score0.174

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0330.043
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0050.006
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.037
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.268 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Higher EducationSame topicAccounting and Organizational ManagementFrench-language works237,207