Voice and Agency: Evaluating the “Empowering Women for Leadership in Administration Roles” Training Program Held at Yarmouk University
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: The objective of this qualitative research is to evaluate the effectiveness of a training program directed towards the female administrative staff at Yarmouk University (YU), called "Empowering Women for Leadership Roles". The program ran from 2018 to 2020 at YU and was funded by Global Affairs Canada. Sixty female participants successfully completed ten training modules within the program to enhance their personal and professional capacity. Methods: The researchers conducted semi-structured interviews with 15 participants, and the interview questions were based on Kirkpatrick’s training evaluation model. Results: The main results revealed that the training program facilitated the women’s learning, enriched their skills, and helped them cultivate resilience, enabling them to draw upon their personal strengths to overcome adversity and marginalization. Conclusions: Based on the results, it is concluded that women should receive training in the early stages of their careers, enabling them to deploy their acquired skills to promote career advancement. Additionally, women holding mid and senior positions must receive continuous support through training and development programs to enhance their leadership skills.
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 | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".